7mm WSM VS 7mm rem mag
09-20-2010, 05:52 AM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
I think what the problem is - is that every time one manufacturer comes out with a new product, another manufacturer has to come out with something that they think is better.
It has nothing to do with actual improvements to the rifle itself, but is nothing more then a gimmick to sell more rifles.
As long as there are people out there that writes articles for magazines, you will always have some writer coming along, writing a article about how this gun is a must have.
About 10 years ago, a friend of mine was hurting for money and sold me his Savage 116 in 7MM Remington Mag. I shot two deer with that rifle and I would still have it today, had I not blown my ear drums, shooting in a tree-stand with a muzzle brake.
About 4 years ago, a friend of mine took a .270 WSM on a trade for a used car and we were in the middle of a gun deal gone bad.
The gun he sold me was junk and he sold the gun that I had traded.
I had about $500 into the .300 Weatherby Magnum and traded it for a converted army rifle in 30-06.
So I traded him his old rifle, and $200 for the Browning .270 WSM
The first thing I had to do was get rid of the scope that came with the gun, because the Leupold Rifleman scope series is the biggest piece of garbage I ever saw.
So I put a Bushnell 3200 5 x 15 x 40 Elite scope on it and bought 4 boxes of shells for it and I only used it one time for hunting.
Because you cannot pick your shots where I hunt, I ended up shooting a nice fat doe - about 50 yards away and when the smoke cleared, there was a hole in the middle of that deer that you could throw a cat through.
It was the first time in my life where I didn't have to gut a deer.
All I had to do was pick it up by the head and tail and shake like a rabbit.
My opinion is that the .270 WSM is too much gun for Whitetail deer and probably the .300 WSM is even worse.
Roy Weatherby liked velocity and the .300 Weatherby Magnum was a real hot rod in its day. But the short magnums is right up there with it.
There is only two advantages to owning a short magnum.
The shells are shorter - which means that you have a shorter action and you can almost carry more shells in the same space as a regular magnum. The other advantage is that the powder burns faster in a short round cartridge - so it does give you more velocity with the same powder charge. That is if 150 fps is important to you.
The primer usually has more to do with the performance of the round then anything else.
Needless to say, 4 boxes of .270 WSM is about a lifetime supply in my book because I don't know if I will ever shoot that rifle ever again for white-tail deer. I have to agree with everybody here that says not to get rid of what already works for you.
I am having a hard time locally buying shells for my WSM and the Walmart wants almost $50 a box for them.
From time to time, a local gun shop - Grice Gun Shop, has a sale, and when they are on sale, I buy several boxes at a time.
Last year I helped out a neighbor and when he asked what he could give me I told him a box of .270 WSM shells. A couple of days later, he gave me $10 and said that the shells were too expensive and to get rid of the gun and get something cheaper to shoot.
He said he got rid of his 7MM08 for the very same reason.
When you have over $1100 tied up in a gun and shells, you don't just run down to the feed mill and trade it in on something else that is only worth half as much, just because you don't want to pay $2.50 every time you pull the trigger.
I believe that the government has inflated the price of the ammo - because they know that they cannot pass any gun control laws.
It is easier to put the price of the ammo out of reach of average people then to try to make people get licenses to have guns or to try to take guns away from people.
When you limit the amount of ammo they can afford, it is the same as gun control - because if you don't have shells to shoot a gun, it is about as worthless as a claw hammer.
It has nothing to do with actual improvements to the rifle itself, but is nothing more then a gimmick to sell more rifles.
As long as there are people out there that writes articles for magazines, you will always have some writer coming along, writing a article about how this gun is a must have.
About 10 years ago, a friend of mine was hurting for money and sold me his Savage 116 in 7MM Remington Mag. I shot two deer with that rifle and I would still have it today, had I not blown my ear drums, shooting in a tree-stand with a muzzle brake.
About 4 years ago, a friend of mine took a .270 WSM on a trade for a used car and we were in the middle of a gun deal gone bad.
The gun he sold me was junk and he sold the gun that I had traded.
I had about $500 into the .300 Weatherby Magnum and traded it for a converted army rifle in 30-06.
So I traded him his old rifle, and $200 for the Browning .270 WSM
The first thing I had to do was get rid of the scope that came with the gun, because the Leupold Rifleman scope series is the biggest piece of garbage I ever saw.
So I put a Bushnell 3200 5 x 15 x 40 Elite scope on it and bought 4 boxes of shells for it and I only used it one time for hunting.
Because you cannot pick your shots where I hunt, I ended up shooting a nice fat doe - about 50 yards away and when the smoke cleared, there was a hole in the middle of that deer that you could throw a cat through.
It was the first time in my life where I didn't have to gut a deer.
All I had to do was pick it up by the head and tail and shake like a rabbit.
My opinion is that the .270 WSM is too much gun for Whitetail deer and probably the .300 WSM is even worse.
Roy Weatherby liked velocity and the .300 Weatherby Magnum was a real hot rod in its day. But the short magnums is right up there with it.
There is only two advantages to owning a short magnum.
The shells are shorter - which means that you have a shorter action and you can almost carry more shells in the same space as a regular magnum. The other advantage is that the powder burns faster in a short round cartridge - so it does give you more velocity with the same powder charge. That is if 150 fps is important to you.
The primer usually has more to do with the performance of the round then anything else.
Needless to say, 4 boxes of .270 WSM is about a lifetime supply in my book because I don't know if I will ever shoot that rifle ever again for white-tail deer. I have to agree with everybody here that says not to get rid of what already works for you.
I am having a hard time locally buying shells for my WSM and the Walmart wants almost $50 a box for them.
From time to time, a local gun shop - Grice Gun Shop, has a sale, and when they are on sale, I buy several boxes at a time.
Last year I helped out a neighbor and when he asked what he could give me I told him a box of .270 WSM shells. A couple of days later, he gave me $10 and said that the shells were too expensive and to get rid of the gun and get something cheaper to shoot.
He said he got rid of his 7MM08 for the very same reason.
When you have over $1100 tied up in a gun and shells, you don't just run down to the feed mill and trade it in on something else that is only worth half as much, just because you don't want to pay $2.50 every time you pull the trigger.
I believe that the government has inflated the price of the ammo - because they know that they cannot pass any gun control laws.
It is easier to put the price of the ammo out of reach of average people then to try to make people get licenses to have guns or to try to take guns away from people.
When you limit the amount of ammo they can afford, it is the same as gun control - because if you don't have shells to shoot a gun, it is about as worthless as a claw hammer.
Last edited by Mr. Deer Hunter; 09-20-2010 at 05:59 AM.
09-20-2010, 07:06 AM
#22
Spike
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Another "+" for the 7mm Rem. Mag. There was nothing wrong with this cartridge, and shortening it so as to put it in a "short action" to "save weight" is an argument I am tired of hearing. How much weight is actually saved on how much shorter the rifle is? Is the action that much stiffer so that it is that much more accurate?
Hunters don't think twice about carrying 20 extra pounds of suet around their middle when hunting but will tell me they've shaved 8 ounces off their rifle by going to the shorter format magnum.
And new powders today may put the 7mm WSM in new realm, but for that same reason so do these new powders do the same for other rifle cartridges as well.
Simply another way to sell more guns. The fact remains you can hunt all game in America with a handful of cartridges. But, that just would be boring for some I suppose.
Hunters don't think twice about carrying 20 extra pounds of suet around their middle when hunting but will tell me they've shaved 8 ounces off their rifle by going to the shorter format magnum.
And new powders today may put the 7mm WSM in new realm, but for that same reason so do these new powders do the same for other rifle cartridges as well.
Simply another way to sell more guns. The fact remains you can hunt all game in America with a handful of cartridges. But, that just would be boring for some I suppose.
09-24-2010, 06:25 PM
#23
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
There is no weight savings in the shell or the gun when you go to a short magnum. As a matter of fact, you get penalized because some short magnum only holds 3 shells and most other magnums holds 4..
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...llion-firearms
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002348
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002349
The gun writers never tells you about that, or the fact that you might pay $80.00 - $100 for a spare clip.
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...llion-firearms
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002348
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002349
The gun writers never tells you about that, or the fact that you might pay $80.00 - $100 for a spare clip.
01-31-2011, 06:48 AM
#25
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where animals get eaten
Posts: 671
There is no weight savings in the shell or the gun when you go to a short magnum. As a matter of fact, you get penalized because some short magnum only holds 3 shells and most other magnums holds 4..
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...llion-firearms
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002348
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002349
The gun writers never tells you about that, or the fact that you might pay $80.00 - $100 for a spare clip.
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...llion-firearms
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002348
http://www.browning.com/products/cat...item=035002349
The gun writers never tells you about that, or the fact that you might pay $80.00 - $100 for a spare clip.
02-08-2011, 05:43 PM
#26
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,746
I say whatever trips your trigger - go for it. IMO I think the 7mm WSM will be around longer than the 7mm Rem Ultra Mag. I can't argue the 7mm Rem Mag is a great cartridge and deserves it place in the hunting world. But those WSMs are fine cartridges too in their own right. Give them time and they will prove themselves too.
Like the one post said, they've been around for about 10 years now and still going strong.
Like the one post said, they've been around for about 10 years now and still going strong.
02-08-2011, 07:39 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
Another "+" for the 7mm Rem. Mag. There was nothing wrong with this cartridge, and shortening it so as to put it in a "short action" to "save weight" is an argument I am tired of hearing. How much weight is actually saved on how much shorter the rifle is? Is the action that much stiffer so that it is that much more accurate?
Hunters don't think twice about carrying 20 extra pounds of suet around their middle when hunting but will tell me they've shaved 8 ounces off their rifle by going to the shorter format magnum.
And new powders today may put the 7mm WSM in new realm, but for that same reason so do these new powders do the same for other rifle cartridges as well.
Simply another way to sell more guns. The fact remains you can hunt all game in America with a handful of cartridges. But, that just would be boring for some I suppose.
Hunters don't think twice about carrying 20 extra pounds of suet around their middle when hunting but will tell me they've shaved 8 ounces off their rifle by going to the shorter format magnum.
And new powders today may put the 7mm WSM in new realm, but for that same reason so do these new powders do the same for other rifle cartridges as well.
Simply another way to sell more guns. The fact remains you can hunt all game in America with a handful of cartridges. But, that just would be boring for some I suppose.
02-09-2011, 04:21 AM
#28
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 797
Hunters don't think twice about carrying 20 extra pounds of suet around their middle when hunting but will tell me they've shaved 8 ounces off their rifle by going to the shorter format magnum.
Very well put Knowyourlimit. Not to mention every gadget made to man. But the rifle is 1/2 pound too heavy.
Very well put Knowyourlimit. Not to mention every gadget made to man. But the rifle is 1/2 pound too heavy.
02-24-2011, 12:54 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,918
There's allot of +'s. I'm adding another one.
I have a few 7mm Mag's and I think it's a great cartridge. Ammo is readily available at most places that sell ammo. I've taken many a deer using a 7 mag.
I have a few 7mm Mag's and I think it's a great cartridge. Ammo is readily available at most places that sell ammo. I've taken many a deer using a 7 mag.