bentbarrel

Has anyone compared the recoil of a 7mm Rem Mag to the new 7mm WSM? Both being factory loads and the same weight. I know theoretically the WSM is suppose to have less recoil but I' ve heard otherwise. You figure with a lighter rifle and shorter barrel it would feel worse in the WSM. It' s hard to get an honest opinion because every article I' ve read praises the short magnums saying there the best thing since sliced bread. Also, I read a post on here not long ago saying how bad the recoil was in the a-bolt 7mm WSM. I don' t know anyone that owns either or I' d shoot them both myself. I like the idea of the short action and lighter rig but I' m not so sure. Thanks guys!

bentbarrel

Got these numbers from www.chuckhawks.com right after I posted. This is surprising? The numbers in bold type are recoil energy (or energy felt). I' m not hung up on recoil...but my .300 Win Mag is no picnic when sighting in. I just wonder why all these writers praise the short magnums for less recoil. I know the difference is somewhat minimal but am I missing something?

7mm WSM (140 at 3055) 8.0 20.9 n/a
7mm WSM (160 at 2795) 8.0 22.4 n/a
7mm Rem. Mag. (140 at 3150) 8.0 19.1 12.4
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 at 3100) 8.5 19.2 12.1
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 at 3110) 9.0 18.2 11.4
7mm Rem. Mag. (154 at 3000) 9.0 18.4 11.5
7mm Rem. Mag. (160 at 2950) 9.0 18.2 11.4

frizzellr

Well it is called hype and it sells products that we don' t really need by basically lying to use to make us believe we do need them. Nowadays gunwriters are no more than compensated spokesmen that sell their endoresment to the highest bidder.

340WBYMAG

Frizzellr is right on the ball with this one. Its more hype than good. In fact the short mags are so popular I understand rifle manufacturers are rethinking the ultra mags because they are being outsold big time. Browning no longer offers any ultra mag in their 2003 catalogue.

I' ve only fired and have experience with magnums. Call me nuts but that' s the exposure I' ve had, I started my collection with a 338 and my last rifle was a 375 H&H. On the weekend I got the opportunity to fire the 7mm short mag by Winchester through a winchester rifle. It reminded me alot of my slug gun. Really loud and fast in the recoil action, maybe because the barrel was shorter and rifle lighter. It almost seemed uncontrolled because of how fast the powder burned when compared to my 300 or 375.

Just my personal perception, I have no numbers to prove it.

340,

TREEDOG

[link]http://www.shortmags.org/shortmags/downloads/lyman_Recoil_Chart.pdf[/link] heres the recoil from a Model 70 and a Browning abolt.

skeeter 7MM

I shot a Browning A bolt in 300WSM last summer and although I had nothing to compare it against right at that time, I can tell you the recoil after firing several shots was enough to discount it off my list with my bad shooting wing. I ended up going with a 7 rem mag and i can shoot it comfortably, which leads to accuracy for me. About the only real benifit I see is a shorter action and some lighter weight rifle options. I don' t see any real benefits for recoil or ballistically from it' s standard long action brothers. Like somebody else said it is all Hype and sugar coated to get us to buy a new/better gun. When in fact our existing ones work just fine and produce similar results.....but that just don' t sell![:' (]

bspittman

I own the .270 WSM and it' s awesome. I haven' t shot the .300 or the 7mm so don' t know what to tell you.

Nomercy

From what I' ve seen, the .270 WSM is the only considerable increase in performance of all the WSM/SAUMs, however, the entire line is an answer to an unasked question, we don' t need a 7mm or .300 that is 100-250fps faster than it' s predecessors, in any hunting situation, I guarantee that you' ll never notice the advantage. People may argue that now you get the same power from a short action, do you really notice the extra .75" draw on your bolt that much? I know I don' t, only time I slack or rip a bolt is when I go between a full sized .22bolt action to a small framed .30-06bolt moving from a 1.5-2" pull to a four inch pull, and that' s only when I' m lazy, it' s not that big of an advantage to use a short action, only when you consider you save a nickel per 100round in powder, but you' re going to pay so much more per brass or per factory round that you' ll still be paying extra.

It' s a bunch of hype, have fun paying half a buck more per round if you get one though.

I may be buying a .243WSSM this summer though, just to be hypocritical

I think the promotion is that in the same weight of rifle, the WSM' s give less felt recoil (although those #' s disprove that too), but then they chamber it in a short action, and short barrel, so you' d never know it was supposed to kick less. I don' t think they kick all that bad at all, but I' ve grown up with true big bores since I started, Super .45-70' s, .416 rigby' s, .458Wins and .458lotts, plus some sub-.40 " big bores" .375H&H, .338Win and Lapua, shoot big bores enough, and even mag 30cals don' t seem like much.

BoltactionMan

In theory, in 7mm' s using the same weight bullets, the short mag' s should have slightly less recoil because they use less powder. The weight of the powder charge is expelled along with the bullet, and less weight means less recoil.

In reality, it is probably not readily apparent, and using a shorter or lighter rifle probably negates any recoil savings.

KC

bigbulls

I have always questioned this " less felt recoil" thing. I always thought that one of the stead fast laws of physics was " for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction" . So if they both move a 150 grain bullet at 3000 fps then they should both have the same ammount of recoil out of the same rifles. This " less felt recoil" thing is crap. IMO.

Now I am going to get a 300 or 338 WSM hear real soon because I like the fact that the short mags headspace off the shoulder instead of the belt. Never liked a belted cartrige.