300 win. Mag or 300wsm

rounds are basicly the same. pick the rifle you like and make your decision based on that.my 300wsm has more recoil than my 300wm did only due to it being almost two pounds lighter. i would go with the wsm just cause i like lighter rifles. i also have a rsum in 30cal just cause i like rem 7's.
 
I'm not an expert on either, but do own similiar rifles in both cartridges, plus the Weatherby vers.

So far, I'd have to say the 300 win mag. has been less fuss'n to get max. velocities and best accuracy from handloads. The Short seems a little more finnicky for some reason, but does do the job, even with 200 grainers with a bit of load tweaking.

No cheap ammo for the Short as of yet.

Recoils the same as far as I'm concerned. There's no magic that defies physics.
 
I guess that in a perfect world, if everything else was equal, the WSM should group better, due to shorter powder column, the .300 Win. would have higher velocity because it holds more powder. Either of them can surprise the user by not allowing heavier/longer bullets then 180gr.....IMHO the .300 Weatherby is a far better round than either of them, and I'm not a fan of these types of rifles on game, an earlier poster had it right with his 45/110 Sharps.
 
I have been at the range and watched a dude firing a Sako or Tikka something-or-other in .300WSM, while my buddy was firing his .300WM.

The Euro-trash rifle weighed next to nothing, and what is it you always hear? BS about how the rifle recoils less so you can get it in a smaller, lighter rifle. Well guess what? Recoil gets equalized by doing that... so quit with the BS unless you are talking about rifles of identical weight and stock configuration etc...

It's a load of crap that there is a big difference in recoil between the two anyway. :bsFlag:
 
I prefer the .300 Win Mag. I reload and I find that it offers more versatility. For a dedicated Elk/Moose rifle, the .338 Win Mag is another great choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom