7mm WSM VS 7mm rem mag
 

After owning both wsm and rem mag, I have come to the grand conclusion that: I cant hardly tell the difference between them with the same bullet. They both seem to be accurate, deadly on game and work best with 140-160 grain pills. The only difference I found was that the 140 grainer seemed to come out about 100-150 FPS faster out of the WSM on my rifle. Part of that was the special powders now available for short magnums. The Rem mag seemed less finicky about bullet brand or weight. I'd sacrifice a few FPS any day for accuracy. SOme folks saw the exact opposite in velocity. its too close to call in that respect.

The conclusion? I kept the WSM and got rid of the rem mag only because the WSM was set up to be a mountain rifle, lighter, shorter barrel.

My advice? go with the rem mag if your buying one and get it in a lighter premium rifle. EJ

I'll stick with the 7mm Rem mag I already have-it's long since paid for and shoots great. I'd be somewhat concerned that the 7mm WSM won't be around as much (easily available ammo) in 10-20 years even though I reload.

+1 on the 7mm-Rem Mag.

+2 on the 7mm-Rem Mag.

How many plus does that make me !?!?



Love the classic cartridges - 7MM Rem Mag, as flat as a .270 and hits like a .30-06 (gotta lov it !)


No need for a short mag....................ain't broke, don't fix it !!??



Here is mine in stainless;

http://www.sakoa7.net/

i guess i am +4 then, I dig on my 7mm Rem Mag...constant, great performer...it is that darn 26" barrel that makes it tough carrying on the deer drive, but so worth it come butchering time :)

Well the reason you can't tell the difference is there is very little. I've only owned the WSM version. It has a very slight edge in velocity according to hodgdon data, but the real world difference is nothing.

I'm not going to fight for the WSM over the standard version.

+5 on the 7mm rem mag,(I THINK)im gonna buy a 7mm rem mag in the next month or so,Savage 110.

Yeah, another buddy of mine up in wyoming has the 7MM RSAUM and likes it of course but he has been as well contemplating the differences and he says he wouldnt want to live on the difference between them.
Now, a 7mm that I am blowing the whistle on (for myself only) is the 7MM ultramag. Man, for the extra FPS you get, you sure pay for it in recoil. The ammo is astronomical as well. I cant shoot far enough to justify one.

Another vote for the 7mm Rem Mag I love my A -Bolt

Love my 7mmRM, though I do like the thought of a 7 short some day.

We all know what a 7MM Rem Mag can do !!!



So..........what is the difference between a "ultra" mag and a "short" mag !?!?

+8 or 9 both are GREAT calibers though.

+9 or 10 for the 7mag, even though i have the short magnum. ammo for it is too hard to find

Agree with those on the 7mm Rem Mag. Had both and seen no advantage to the 7mm WSM, so sold it and have not looked back.

+11 for 7mmrem mag. Only shot 1 deer with it but it droped like it was hit with a ton of bricks

Imagine that, if you fire the same bullet at the same velocity you get the same in flight ballistics and same terminal performance. Who'd a thunk it?????

I like the ________ because it drops deer in their tracks. Yeah, and the other wouldn't.

I own neither, but if I were buying one I'd also go with the 7 RM. But only because I'm concerned with the lack of ammo availability for the WSM. I actually like the concept of the WSM better, but don't want to be stuck without ammo choices in the future, as I don't reload.

the wsm's were brought out almost ten years ago. I know its not 60 years. But they are still selling left and right and anywhere I find 300 win bullets I find 300 wsm. I dont think the short mags are going anywhere. 75 years ago the 220 swift wasnt gonna stay around long either. Nobody can predict what cartridges will and will not weather the test of time. The short action light weight rifle combo will continue on. I have the 270 and 300 wsm and love them. I agree you cant tell the difference between the short mags and the standard magnum cartridges. If you cant tell the difference why put one down and praise the other. Between the two (7mm rem or 7mm wsm) I would take the short mag everytime. But thats only if I had to keep it the way I bought it. Ill never own another 7mm remington because like the 3 I already have, they will all turn into stw's. In my eye thats where they really start to shine.

another vote for 7mm Rem Mag...

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.

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. :happy0157:

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.

Stick with the trusty 7mm mag. This "short mag" stuff just doesn't make much sense to me.

most other magnums hold 4?since when?gotta love this guys wisdom.

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.

+1, Very well put!!!!!

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.

4
 

Rem 7 mag and 7wsm are too close.. I think when you get into the 270 wsm compared to a 270 and the 300 wsm compared to a 300 is when you start to see a difference.

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.

Much Ado About Nothing
 

I never saw the value of the short magnums. It was just re-inventing the wheel. The ballistics I have seen are not different enought to mention and the so called "weight savings" is minimal.

It simply gave the gun manufacturers something new to sell. If you did not have the parent cartridge, one was as good as the other in a new rifle. For those that had the parent cartridge, there was nothing to be gained by buying one. The short action myth is just that. A couple of ounces? Who cares?

In light of the cost of ammunition, I see the short magnums disappearing in favor of the original cartiridges. Why pay more for nothing?

Big Bullets,

Welcome to the forum !

I've see a few of your posts & I like the way you think.

I bet the same thing was said about the 308 win in the 1950's

Thanks Sheridan. Great minds and all that........

Stapher1,

There is no comparison. The .308 was and is a military round and, as such, was bound to have an extended life in that role and thereafter as a surplus round. While is is not too different on ballistics to the 30-06, it has a life of it's own. The short magnums differ in minimal ways from the original round and cost much more. Where is the appeal?

Eventually, people who own the short rounds will fade waway and new buyers will see the wisdom of sticking with the parent round. You will see many inexpensive short magnum rifles on gun shops racks looking for new owners.

There is nothing wrong with the short magnum rounds. They just do not provide any special reason to buy them. I now see them an attempt to boost rifle sales.

If someone wants one, great but, they must be willing to pay more for the ammo and accept less availability as time goes on.

So your saying, nobody in the 50's that said there was no need for a 308 win when they got a 30.06. And didn't the 308 replaced the 30.06 as a military round. For the reasons you've just stated.

IF you buy off the shelf...yes, if you reload...no. My ackley cost way more to reload.
After 10yrs and shelves full of used "old" school magnums at my local gun shops and other forums like this that either guys shoot competition or long range hunting with the short mags makes me doubt that. It's not like gun companies are making you get rid of your mag, it's that the short mag is another option if don't already have a magnum. Plus if that many guys were that worried about prices, then the weatherby mags would have disappeared.

I beg to Differ
 

If you had a 30-06 in the 50s, there was no reason to buy a .308 due to their ballistic similarity. In fact, '06 ammo was surplus and cheap while .308 was commercial and relatively expensive.

You are correct but, most hunters do not reload.

The .308 replaced the '06 simply to make NATO ammunition common to all members. There was no other "benefit".

Weatherby is different because they have a true speed advantage if you feel that is helpful to you as a hunter.

In the end, some people just have to try the latest thing, or just want one of each or can afford to indulge wims. My postiion is that, if you look at real needs, it is superfluous to have both the parent and short magnum. I would rather spend the money on something entirely different to ad to my collection. Whatever floats your boat.

That lame argument of "reinventing the wheel", "no need for a new cartridge when the old one works just fine", bla bla bla bla.

If companies weren't constantly coming up with new designs and marketing them we would all still be hunting with flint tipped spears and driving model A's. We wouldn't even have gun powder.

So save that BS argument and be dang glad that we have such a variety of cartridges to choose from and own.

".....be dang glad that we have such a variety of cartridges to choose from and own." Bulls


We do & there will be many more to come; and we all choose which we prefer to buy and use !


Some cartridges come into fashion and then a decade (or two) later just fade away.................your call ???

Engage the Brain
 

I never said that there was "no need for a new cartridge" I said that if you are going to bring one out, it should have something unique to offer. The short magnum offers nothing new. Hey, if you want one, buy one! But, if you have the original, what new capabilities have you gained? Same ballistics=same capabilities. Maybe you have different stock or barrel design. If that is worth the money to you, by all means; it is your money.

Extending the argument to cars is a specious attempt at making your point. However, since you brought it up........since the mid seventies, car prices are around 7 times higher for the same or less capabililities. Would you like to extend that "benefit" to firearms?

Now, before you get all angry, think about it before you reply. All I ask is some thought.