.300 Win Mag v .300 WSM v .300 RCM...???

[MCMXI]

I've owned a .308 and .300 Win Mag for quite a few years so when I decided to buy a new hunting rifle 18 months ago I chose the Remington Alaskan Ti in .300 WSM. I wanted a lightweight, corrosion resistant, short action rifle capable of taking any animal in North America and beyond.

Given my experience with the excellent .300 Win Mag and the theoretical ballistics of the .300 WSM, it seemed like a good choice. I've never bought factory ammunition for any of my .30 caliber rifles and don't plan on starting now. The .300 WSM uses the same powder, same primers and same bullets as the .300 Win Mag so it was a good fit for me.

I like having choices in terms of calibers and from where I sit, the more the merrier. I could care less if the major manufactures stop making .300 WSM rifles and I could care less about the availability of factory ammunition. If I need/want another one I'll have one built or add a Krieger barrel to the action that I have now.

 

[UnTainted]

I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.

I agree, from where I sit, the more the merrier to!!!

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

300 RCM was designed to improve on .300 Win Mag performance, delivering more velocity with 10-15% less powder (probably a different powder?), longer barrel life, less recoil, muzzle blast & flash, in a far more compact cartridge

It may have been designed to do that, but the designers failed - it doesn't do the bolded part. Doesn't even equal .300 Win Mag. Ditto for WSM. The original offers more performance with heavier bullets, period.

 

[rcmodel]

but in competition shooting, they used to use 30'06 all the time, but after the release of the .308 they found that the case was giving more inherent accuracy than the 30'06 because of powder-burning efficiency

The accuracy followed the caliber of the service rifle of the time.

When the service teams shot 03 Springfields, and later M-1 30-06 rifles in competation, and developed the rifles & loads for them, everyone followed and shot 30-06 and developed it further.

When the service teams switched to the M-14 & 700 bolt-guns in .308, the same thing happened again.

Next it was the switch to the M-16 & 5.56MM that resulted in the accuracy everyone is getting out of them now.

Whatever the current military darling is, will be everyone elses too.

And that still happens to be the 5.56mm & 7.62 NATO.

rc

 

[Reid73]

The short,fat powder column is supposed to ignite more evenly in the short mags. Resulting in more uniform pressure, hence better accuracy.

This is true. Of course, whether the difference is significant enough to be noticeable in hunting rifles is debateable.

On the other hand, there are substantial disadvantages to short, fat cases. See generally "Selling Short: Finally, the truth". Worth thinking about, anyway.

I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.

We will see. Only time will tell.

I haven't see many .308 or .358 Norma Mags recently. Ditto the .348 Win, 8mm Rem Mag, or .358 Win. To my way of thinking, all of those cartridges are more useful than any of these new short magnums; but that hasn't prevented them from fading into obsolence.

I agree, from where I sit, the more the merrier to!!!

Have to disagree with you there.

An unbridled multiciplicity of choices just increases costs for everyone. That would be tolerable if new cartridges offered a substantial improvement over the old; but there is no point to 'a solution in search of a problem'.

 

[jbech123]

I highly doubt the major manufacturers will ever stop making 300WSM (both rifles and ammo). Highly doubt.

Agree. I'd put money on the table that will be the fate of the 300 rcm pretty soon though.

 

[jbech123]

Quote:
The short,fat powder column is supposed to ignite more evenly in the short mags. Resulting in more uniform pressure, hence better accuracy.

This is true. Of course, whether the difference is significant enough to be noticeable in hunting rifles is debateable.

Actually it might be debateable in a target rifle, but in a hunting rifle under hunting conditions there are so many variables affecting where your bullet hits, the 1/10moa difference in inherent accuracy(being generaous) would not be a factor.

 

[Reid73]

No argument from me. I know that I cannot shoot well enough to notice a difference; nor can the vast majority of shooters.

The only real advantage of the short mags is their ability to be chambered in compact actions. Some people maintain that this is important to them, and they are entitled to their opinion.

What is funny is people buying Tikkas in the short magnums. Apparently they don't realize that the T3 only comes in one action length, which pretty much negates the point of the WSM.

 

[mzimmers]

I think some people in this thread may have overstated the intended purpose of the .300 RCM. Like its parent cartridge, it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does. It's not just about a cartridge; it's about a cartridge and a gun.

Whether it deserves space in anyone's safe is a personal choice, but...I'm giving serious thought to selling my Weatherby .300 and getting one of these.

 

[jbech123]

it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun.

Which is the exact purpose of the WSM and SAUM that came before it. While debateable in real world utility, I think most people ackowledge at least on paper the advantages of a short fat round with similar performance to a 300wm. It is the RCM duplicating the wsm, after the SAUM already duplicated it, that people have a hard time seeing the value in. If I invent a new cartidge called the 307JB improved, and it is short action, does well with bullets from 150-180 gr., is extremely accurate shooting 168 gr match bullets at 2650 fps, and does well in semi auto platforms too, that is great. Problem is I've brought nothing new that the 308 win doesn't have.

 

[Reid73]

it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does.

Same as the .308 Win, introduced in 1952.

I'm glad that you were successful on your recent hog hunt, but (based upon the limited information provided in your post) you would enjoyed the same results with a .30/06, or the aforementioned .308. As you know, the standard calibres are capable of quite satisfactory performance.

 

[mzimmers]

OK, I don't want to see this deteriorate into an argument, but...the .300 RCM has at least one significant advantage over both the .300 WSM and the .308. Its recoil is considerably less than the WSM (especially in a shorter-barreled rifle), and it should be a much flatter shooter than the .308.

I didn't mean to imply that the .300 RCM filled some gaping hole in the lineup of .308 calibers out there; merely that it occupies a rather unique niche among them and is quite a viable alternative.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Well He is right, it's not just the round itself... the rifle has a lot to do with it also... I mean, a 1/2" less receiver length is a lot!

We chronographed a WSM, RCM and SAUM and NONE gave the velocity of their claimed resume, velocities were less than stated.
I'll say it was the shorter barrels.

 

[ArmedBear]

it was designed to deliver high performance for the caliber in a light, compact gun. And that it does.

The guns I've seen are neither. They have a short action, but that doesn't translate into a compact, light rifle.

Compare some very common examples, the Model 7 CDL and the Model 700 CDL, some of the first guns to come to mind as "light, compact" and "standard-size."

In the M7, the .300 WSM weighs 7 3/8 lbs. with a 22" barrel. The good old .308 weighs 6 1/2 lbs. with a 20":
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_seven/model_seven_CDL_specs.asp

In the equivalent 700, the .30-06 weighs 7 1/2 lbs. with a 24" barrel, and the .300 WinMag weighs 7 5/8 lbs. with a 26" barrel:
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_CDL_specs.asp

Where's your light and compact?

Furthermore, .30-06 and .300 WinMag will give you book velocities with those barrels. The .300 WSM is going to lose a little with the 22".

So with the .300 WSM, you get a short action, but you gain nothing in terms of light or compact.

 

[Reid73]

OK, I don't want to see this deteriorate into an argument, but...

No worries there. This is The High Road, and people are capable of having friendly discussions.

While flat shooting is certainly a desireable characteristic, I wonder how useful it really is. Frankly, few hunters are capable of consistantly accurate shooting at ranges over 250 yards. Some are, but they are in the minority. And the .308 et al. are perfectly adequate for intermediate range shooting.

I didn't mean to imply that the .300 RCM filled some gaping hole in the lineup of .308 calibers out there; merely that it occupies a rather unique niche among them and is quite a viable alternative.

Sir, if you like it, by all means enjoy!

 

[juk]

If you're just looking for a big, bad a$$, butt whomping 30 cal, look no further than the 30-378 weatherby mag. I though my friend was crazy for taking a 30 caliber to North Dakota to shoot deer out of fields at up to 600 yards. I changed my mind when he was doing some "testing" on the differences between 30.06 and 30-378. The target was several layers of industrial polycarbonate type stuff. Each layer was about 1" thick and each target had 7 layers. the 06 broke the first few and cracked the rest. That 30-378 not only broke all of them on a new target, but proceeded to blow the umpteen million pieces all around the berm. It left a hole in the ground too. Hard to NOT be impressed by that!

 

[USSR]

I changed my mind when he was doing some "testing" on the differences between 30.06 and 30-378. The target was several layers of industrial polycarbonate type stuff. Each layer was about 1" thick and each target had 7 layers. the 06 broke the first few and cracked the rest. That 30-378 not only broke all of them on a new target, but proceeded to blow the umpteen million pieces all around the berm. It left a hole in the ground too. Hard to NOT be impressed by that!

Hmm, I'll change my mind when deer start wearing polycarbonate flak jackets.

Don

 

[juk]

Any deer that gets hit with either won't be able to tell a difference. When the deer start wearing armor, I'm gonna give it up and stick to duck hunting only. (although most ducks seem like they are wearing armor) He seemed pretty convinced though. His "up close" deer rifle was a Remington VTR in 308.

 

[Uncle Mike]

(although most ducks seem like they are wearing armor)

You noticed this about the ducks also.....

 

[desidog]

I don't think there's a noticeable difference for hunting...dead is dead. Just know where your round is going to go, and plan accordingly.

I can't speak for the RCM, but i can compare the .300WM/WSM: as i recently summed up in another thread, the short action is an advantage for cheek-weld: I can keep my eye through the scope while chambering the next round, instead of lifting my head and, in the process, minutely changing the ergonomics of my grip. Performance wise, the two cartridges are similar enough that it's beyond my innate math-processing ability and accuracy to see a difference.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Mike - I'm not familiar with scoped in. You write for anyone else? I'm a long-time Calif. based outdoor writer for several regionals and some nationals. Saw your Paso Robles hog photo and smiled. I've been hunting around Paso for decades. Going up for the next hog on the 19-20th so I can write about shooting one with factory copper ammo... Just got back from shooting a monster bear on Vancouver Island with the .338 version of the RCM. For the purposes of this thread, I'm a true believer in the .338 version. Not completely sold on the .300. Happy to compare notes. 338 RCM using Hornady 225 grain SST produced one-shot, double-lung, through-and through DRT results on my bear, which squared nearly 7 feet.

And by the way, I'd hang onto that 300 Wby whether you buy a 300 RCM or not -- or sell it to me.

Here's my .338 RCM bear... assuming I load the photo correctly.

[/IMG]

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Oops, wrong photo. That was the last hog I shot, with a muzzleloader, just prior to the lead ban. Here's the new bear...

 

[Reid73]

wrong photo. That was the last hog I shot, with a muzzleloader,

Glad you clarified that ... I saw the ramrod in the first photo, thought I was going crazy!

Nice bear.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

I did that just to mess with you senior members.