300Win Mag. Vs. 300 WSM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 300Win Mag. Vs. 300 WSM
ORIGINAL: SwampCollie
The performance of the WSM is nearly that of the WM, but, as you said the WM has a greater capacity. A quick search tells me the WSM has 80.4gr (water) and the WM 87.0gr (water). Thats quite a bit of difference isn't it? Why is it that the WSM is so close in performace to the WM when the capacity is (apparently) pretty drastically different? Is it just because the WSM is more effiecient? Something with the wider body of the shell or the like?
The performance of the WSM is nearly that of the WM, but, as you said the WM has a greater capacity. A quick search tells me the WSM has 80.4gr (water) and the WM 87.0gr (water). Thats quite a bit of difference isn't it? Why is it that the WSM is so close in performace to the WM when the capacity is (apparently) pretty drastically different? Is it just because the WSM is more effiecient? Something with the wider body of the shell or the like?
Some like eld might be able to chime in. I know there is alot of wildcatters on accurate reloading that could prossibly give the correct answer. But alot of people are going to tell you that the WSM is loaded to higher pressure limit than the WM.
There are loading programs out here like quickload, that one can play and model effects like this. But I am not a wildcatter, so I don't know.
#22
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: 300Win Mag. Vs. 300 WSM
SwampCollie - the short fat case burns powder more efficiently and is able to generate near magnum power with a lesser amount of powder. The statement "near magnum" is intentional. My recollection of the selling points of the short magnums was you right close to a magnum in power in a lighter short action rifle. Somewhere along the line the "better" discussion took over. IMO there is no "best" rifle; shoot what you like as long as the round is appropriate for the situation.
The WSM's tend to kick a bit more than their magnum counterparts. Yes, you are burning less powder and should have a reduced recoil, but with the shorter cartridge you can have a shorter action and maybe shave an inch off of the barrel. This gives you a lighter rifle which will negate the reduction in recoil. Its one of those "all other things being equal" situations as far as recoil is concerned.Other thingsdon't stay equal, and it kicks more (not tons more)
I do wish that the boxed ammo priced would've dropped more since their introduction. I stocked up when I bought my .270 WSM and haven't seen much price difference in the years since.
The short magnums are a viable choice for reloaders. However, I do recall reading that due to the COAL and powder capacityyou're restricted from loading the longer heavier bullets as they'd go too far into the case.
The WSM's tend to kick a bit more than their magnum counterparts. Yes, you are burning less powder and should have a reduced recoil, but with the shorter cartridge you can have a shorter action and maybe shave an inch off of the barrel. This gives you a lighter rifle which will negate the reduction in recoil. Its one of those "all other things being equal" situations as far as recoil is concerned.Other thingsdon't stay equal, and it kicks more (not tons more)
I do wish that the boxed ammo priced would've dropped more since their introduction. I stocked up when I bought my .270 WSM and haven't seen much price difference in the years since.
The short magnums are a viable choice for reloaders. However, I do recall reading that due to the COAL and powder capacityyou're restricted from loading the longer heavier bullets as they'd go too far into the case.
#23
RE: 300Win Mag. Vs. 300 WSM
I shot the 300 Win Mag for quite a few years and I don't recall throwing away hardly any brass. However I don't hot rod any caliber. If I need more punch I move up to a larger caliber.