HuntingNet.com Forums - 7mm WSM - Your thoughts.....

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Guns (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/guns-10/)

- - 7mm WSM - Your thoughts..... (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/guns/388260-7mm-wsm-your-thoughts.html)

I have a Kimber Montana in 325 WSM. No feeding problems with the short mag round at all.

I have no experience with the 7mm WSM but it should be the equal of the great 7mm Rem Mag ballistically with all but the long 175 grainers. The lighter and shorter rifle is always nice too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarnesX.308 (Post 4109479)

the 7mm WSM is ballistically a little better than the 7mm Rem Mag so you can't really go wrong there.

Am I missing something? 7mmRM has more case capacity. I'm not around factory loads though so maybe they do list the WSM faster..
Great round though. Get the 7mmRM punch in a shorter/lighter package.

Quote:

Am I missing something? 7mmRM has more case capacity. I'm not around factory loads though so maybe they do list the WSM faster..

It's slightly faster because they case is more efficient. The shorter and wider case allows the powder to burn more completely and over a shorter span. So, they can develop full velocity in shorter barrels than the longer cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarnesX.308 (Post 4109602)

it may be more efficient, but loaded to the same pressure the larger case capacity creates more gas, which makes more velocity, no way can the wsm make more velocity than the 7 RM, cubic inches makes horsepower no matter how ya look at it
RR

I still say the 7mm rem is a better round then the 7mm wsm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnhunter444 (Post 4109541)

I happen to be a fan of the SMs and own several; 6.5RM, .270WSM, 7mmSAUM, .300SAUM, .300RCM, .325WSM and .350RM. All the ones I own feed just fine. Most of mine are Remington Model Sevens (or 673s) with one Ruger and one BLR. I'd not call them superior to any of their standard mag cousins, but I like them because they are shorter & lighter. My 20" barreled .300RCM will spit out a 150gr bullet 200 FPS faster than a 24" 30/06 in a much shorter & lighter package, which is what I want & like from it.

Completely agree...I'm not saying the short mags are necessarily any better than other similar calibers. I have several 25 cal rifles (25WSSM, 257RAI, 250 Sav)...I like them all for different reasons but i really like the 25WSSM because of the super short action which also leads to a lighter rifle. I also have a 270 Win I really love and the valocities I get from my 270WSM is very similar than my 270 WIN (just with a littl less powder) and again a short action (lighter rifle) and i think it actually recoils a little less than my 270 WIN...I just like them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge Runner (Post 4109606)

That's what I was thinking no way the 7and is greater then the 7mm rem.

They're pretty much equal if you look at Hodgdon load data for those two 7mm's. Bigger isn't always better.

Classic cartridge guy.

Give me my 7mm RM.............. and I'll be fine.

Quote:

Yeah, but would the 7mm Rem need more barrel length to achieve its maximum potential? As the powder is burning and gas is expanding and bullet is pushing down the barrel, the end of the 7mm powder column is running down the barrel, ahead of the reaction. In a short barrel, wouldn't a large charge drop a few grains on the ground? I think the short mag gets all the coals cooking evenly. Like a charcoal grill. :D

There's no replacement for displacement, right? :D But there are high compression engines with fuel injection and twin turbo chargers. :D