Short Mags

[BigBuck$]

Looking at getting a new rifle for X-Mass, just wondering how the 300 short mags compare to the standard 300 Wins'. As far as balistics they look fairly close in comparison. Recoil, I would expect it would be the same. What if any advantages do the shorties boast other than shorter action stroke? Has anyone switched and what are your thoughts?

What if any advantages do the shorties boast other than shorter action stroke?

That's pretty well it with the 300WSM.....it may shave a few ounces off overall weight and a bit off overall length as well because of shorter action but ballistics are pretty much identical if you are buying off the shelf ammo. Well that and it's new...lol Always fun to one a new calibre. The only WSM that really seems to shine over it's long action counterpart is the .270WSM. Now it does boast some hotter ballistics.

[AB2506]

Could be the shape of the stocks, but my friends Kimber 270 WSM seems to recoil no more than my father's Winchester 270. That is surprising given the WSM better ballistics and that the Kimber is considerably lighter. The Kimber should feel significantly heavier in recoil, but it doesn't. Quite comfortable in fact. So far 1 bull elk and 2 WT with factory 140 gr Accubond. The frien claims to be recoil sensitive due to shoulder surgery and he is always raving about how little the felt recoil is.

As for the 300WSM to 300 WM, the 2 are identical with up to 180 gr bullets. When it comes to heavier bullets, I believe that the 300WM pulls away with it's greater powder capacity.

[BigBuck$]

I've done a little more digging here tonight and apparently there can be a problem with the short mag when it comes to heavy bullets (220 grain), the heavy loads that I like for Moose require the bullet to be pressed deeper into the shell casing which can off-set the acuracy of the load. This is necessary to keep the cartridge short enough to be able to chamber the shell........ maybe stick with if it aint broke don't fix it theory

Originally Posted by AB2506

Could be the shape of the stocks, but my friends Kimber 270 WSM seems to recoil no more than my father's Winchester 270. That is surprising given the WSM better ballistics and that the Kimber is considerably lighter. The Kimber should feel significantly heavier in recoil, but it doesn't. Quite comfortable in fact. So far 1 bull elk and 2 WT with factory 140 gr Accubond. The frien claims to be recoil sensitive due to shoulder surgery and he is always raving about how little the felt recoil is.

As for the 300WSM to 300 WM, the 2 are identical with up to 180 gr bullets. When it comes to heavier bullets, I believe that the 300WM pulls away with it's greater powder capacity.

Yup...definitely stock design or other factor...I've shot a couple 270WSMs that kick like a mule.

[Donny Bear]

I still think the 300 wm is king but I am enjoying my new 300wsm Coyote Lite with Shepherd Optics made the longest shot of my life won't subject myself to judgement by saying how long but it was impresive Nosler has switched to 300 wsm as the test cartridge because of inherant accuracy and this was the choice for the first Nosler custom rifle as well I think both are great but if I want to start throwing 200 and 220s down range I will stick to the 300 wm but the WSM works wonders with 165 - 168 -180s IMO

Originally Posted by BigBuck$

I've done a little more digging here tonight and apparently there can be a problem with the short mag when it comes to heavy bullets (220 grain), the heavy loads that I like for Moose require the bullet to be pressed deeper into the shell casing which can off-set the acuracy of the load. This is necessary to keep the cartridge short enough to be able to chamber the shell........ maybe stick with if it aint broke don't fix it theory

If you like bullets that heavy I wouldn't be shooting a.300...maybe a .338 or 325WSM?

[BigBuck$]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If you like bullets that heavy I wouldn't be shooting a.300...maybe a .338 or 325WSM?

I agree the bigger calibers are a better way to go when you want to put some serious lead in the air, but the 300 is nice when you want to shoot a lighter 150 - 180 grain load for the long range stuff. Makes a pretty good all round gun IMO. No need for a second rifle.....................what the hell am I talking about I've got a pretty good selection already

Makes a pretty good all round gun IMO.

No question about that although I must admit that I've never pushed anything bigger than 180 grain out of mine........

[BigBuck$]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No question about that although I must admit that I've never pushed anything bigger than 180 grain out of mine........

The 220's are all I shot out of my Browning A Bolt but it had a brake on it, I tried shooting a few through my Savage and I was quickly turning blue on the shoulder. I ended up going to 180's with that gun, 40 grains makes a big difference when it comes to recoil.

I ended up going to 180's with that gun, 40 grains makes a big difference when it comes to recoil.

Oh ya......actually most 300s I've had anything to do with shot 180s the best anyhow and with a well constructed bullet, more than adequate for anything you'll aim it at in North America.

[AB2506]

Originally Posted by BigBuck$

I've done a little more digging here tonight and apparently there can be a problem with the short mag when it comes to heavy bullets (220 grain), the heavy loads that I like for Moose require the bullet to be pressed deeper into the shell casing which can off-set the acuracy of the load. This is necessary to keep the cartridge short enough to be able to chamber the shell........ maybe stick with if it aint broke don't fix it theory

Actually, accuracy with heavy bullets, is not the issue with the WSM. It is that the bullets protrude into the powder capacity and as the WSM already has less capacity than a WM, it cannot keep up with the WM. Cannot seat heavy bullets out further and fit in short action. If you went to a longer action, may as well shoot a WM, beyond being beltless, no benefit to WSM in a long action. (And that's why I would NEVER buy a Tikka T3 in a short action cartridge of any type. For same money or less buy a SPS or Savage for crying out loud. IMHO)

[Donny Bear]

Originally Posted by AB2506

Actually, accuracy with heavy bullets, is not the issue with the WSM. It is that the bullets protrude into the powder capacity and as the WSM already has less capacity than a WM, it cannot keep up with the WM. Cannot seat heavy bullets out further and fit in short action. If you went to a longer action, may as well shoot a WM, beyond being beltless, no benefit to WSM in a long action. (And that's why I would NEVER buy a Tikka T3 in a short action cartridge of any type. For same money or less buy a SPS or Savage for crying out loud. IMHO)

This is exactly the issue with long bullets

[MODEL70]

I Have Being Shooting 300wsm For 3 Or 4 Years Now And Am Super Happy With It. The Gun Is A Winchester Model 70. I Have Shot The Gun Lots At The Range And Am Always Impressed With Its Grouping Ability. I Shoot Factory Ammo Winchesters 180 Grain Accubond. I Find Them To Shoot The Best For Me. The Gun Shoots Very Flat. It Is True They Do Not Like Much Lighter Grain Then 165 And Not Much Higher Then 180. The Recoil Is Good But Every Gun Is Different. A Buddy As The 300wsm In A Vanguard And It Bucks Like A Bull. 3 Or 4 Shots And Thats It Shoulders Done. Mine Is Much Better I Can Shoot 15 To 20 Rounds Before It Gets Noticeable. But At The End Of The Day They Will Both Do Very Well In The Right Hands.
Ps.. Lol Got My First Scope To The Nose This Year. Got A Little To Comfortable Shooting The Old Girl. She Made Me Pay.

[Skinnydipper]

At this point I have one of each in the .308 caliber. A Remington M700 .300 Win. Mag with a Bell & Carlson stock and a Sako 85 Finnlight in .300 WSM. Both have manageable recoil and as others have mentioned already, much of it lies in stock design. The noticed recoil is supposed to be less in the WSM since it is touted to be a more efficient burn design (short, fat cartridge), shooting similar velocities with less powder.
Though the ballistics are relatively close, they do start to spread further apart with the heavier bullet weights.
If you buy factory ammo or reload, you will find the WSM's to always cost more (because of the "cool" factor )
At this point I am a fan of the WSM series and have a .270 WSM that my wife shoots and may buy another at some point for myself.
To recap; there is no significant advantage, other than the "cool" factor!!!

[Dick284]

Sure the 300 Win Mag will champion over it's WSM cousin. it has greater capacity, and will burn more powder.
But with 200 or 220 grain bullets there is likely not much more than 100 to 150fps diffrence in muzzle velocity.
So in reality, who here is gonna see any real world diffrence in performance with a 200gr. bullet doing either 2900fps, or 2800fps? Especially with shots being less than 400 yards.
Your arguing or dissing for the sake of it. No one on this planet or any other can un equivically say they or the game could see any diffrence, save an inch or two in trajectory.
So get what you want or like and get on with it.

[Donny Bear]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Sure the 300 Win Mag will champion over it's WSM cousin. it has greater capacity, and will burn more powder.
But with 200 or 220 grain bullets there is likely not much more than 100 to 150fps diffrence in muzzle velocity.
So in reality, who here is gonna see any real world diffrence in performance with a 200gr. bullet doing either 2900fps, or 2800fps? Especially with shots being less than 400 yards.
Your arguing or dissing for the sake of it. No one on this planet or any other can un equivically say they or the game could see any diffrence, save an inch or two in trajectory.
So get what you want or like and get on with it.

True words the only differance is you get that 150 fsp and don't have the compression on the load due to the depth of the seating. No arguments love both cartriges.