game4lunch

The two have almost identical ballistics, recoil energy, muzzle v., etc.
I think all would agree that both are more than capable of bringing down all North American big game (even griz).
So what are the intangibles? Assuming the cost is equal, you say the WSM "fits" better. I'd still take the WM and cut the stock down, save it, and glue it back on when he gets bigger knowing that I will still have a better resale value in the WM than the WSM. The only thing I can see that the WSM or any short mag gives you is a shorter action which should allow faster reload and shooting. Who cares?!

I still say gun makers "invent" rounds just to improve sales, not improve hunting success. Which is ultimately why we choose a particular gun. All magnums have dramatically changed the way we look at rounds. They provided "flatter" shooting projectiles and heavier forse at contact. The .300 WM is tried and true. I'd stay with it.
Some can afford to match a weapon to the game and own several guns, me . . . I got my .300 WM and take everything with it. Antelope, deer, elk, bear, moose. Even thought about taking it goose hunting, but it's against the rules!

ShatoDavis

Six of one, Half a dozen of another. You can't go wrong with either one. I like my 300 wsm quite well. Brass doesn't cost much more than 300 wm so for me the ammo cost argument means nothing. You might save a little weight with the WSM but you lose the ability to chase the lands and still use the Magazine. Recoil, accuracy, Kinetic energy, & ballistics are basically identical. Of course if you want to push the envelope with the 300 wm you can exceed the wsm by some 1-200 FPS. I prefer to go with the most accurate load not the fastest anyway.

eversboys

I have a Savage 300WSM and wouldnt trade it for anything else. Im shooting dead center at 100yds but then again I shoot 40/40 with an M16A2from 300 meters too."ARMY STRONG, ALL Day Long"

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

eldeguello

The WSM outdoes the WM in advertisers hype, and amy do so in a factory load.

However, one of the constant truths about firearms that will never change is that everything else being equal, theround with the greater case capacity can always be loaded to out-perform one of the same caliber that holds less powder.

The only way a .300 WSM can out-perform a .300 WM with the same bullets is if it is loaded to a higher pressure level. I have even heard of a few cases in whichfactory-loaded .300 WSM cartridges gave hard bolt lift and stretched primer pockets. Yet, either one out-performs the .30/'06 by a significant margin, particularly with heavy bullets. If it were I, I would buy the one in the rifle design I liked the best.

SwampCollie

I think the recoil of the WSM is a little bit less. The of course, depends a lot on the individual gun, cut of the stock, type of recoil pad etc etc. I have shot Browning A-Bolts in both, and thought the WSM was a quicker sharp kick, while the WindBag was a longer whallop.

Performence wise, the WSM wins on paper. Buton target and on game, I don't think it makes much of a difference. If the WSM fits him better, then thats the way I would go. He will be much happier with a rifle that fits him well.

James B

No way can the 300 WSM match the 300 WM for versatility. The only advantage of the 300 WSM is the short action if you call that an advantage. With the heavies bullets the 300 WM will out run the 300 WSM hands down.

bigcountry

And the WM should have a bit more kick. It does have more case capacity. And powder wieght is a huge contribution to kick even if both bullets from both guns are coming out the same velocity.

I love the WSM line. Don't get me wrong. Just know,it will not keepup with awinmag. At least thetwo I own. And I too notice the WSM's seem to be easier to work up a load for. Little more dynamic.

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

SwampCollie

Big;

Just a few ?'s for you here. Not meant as arguements at all, just ?'s for my own clarification.

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?