Ok, who else shoots a 7mm WSM?

[lowmileage]

Mine is a no frills, M70 synthetic stock, blind magazine that was one of the last ones to come out of (RIP) New Haven. Brass is impossible to buy so I've tried 2 difference types of factory ammo. The Fusion 150 grain and the 160 grain Federal Trophy Bonded tip. In my rifle, I think the 160 grain is a HOT load as the bolt becomes hard to lift after firing sometimes. I have an old Chrony and it read 3127 fps which I dont know if I can believe that. It is accurate. 100 yd results.

 

[Varminterror]

My wife shoots one in a Savage 12 switch barrel which started life as a 243win.

Other than crappy brass, which is also often hard to find, it's a fantastic round. I've found it easy to tune, and in a full weight Savage heavy rifle, it's mild to shoot.

 

[Llama Bob]

I'd love to shoot it (or 7 SAUM) but the availability of ammo and brass is so bad that I haven't bothered. They're both great calibers. It's very much a shame that we ended up with two of them, splitting the market and ruining what little momentum was present. Part of the problem from my perspective is that 7 SAUM is slightly better supported, but it's a round I would want chambered in a M70 short action. That's going to be a custom rifle for the foreseeable future.

 

[captain awesome]

I have been intrigued by some of the short magnums, but never thought to pull the trigger on buying one. I hope they don't die off.

 

[lowmileage]

I also have a 300 Win Mag and shoot it with 200 grain Nosler Partitions. It is quite the deadly big game rifle that recoils quite sharply from the bench. The 7mm WSM, even with 160 grain bullets, recoils substancially less.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

How long is the barrel on that M70? I've been thinking it would make a great light weight sheep gun.

 

[CptnAwesome]

Back in the early 2000's I owned a Win mod 70 shadow then a Ruger M77 MKII in 7mm WSM. I loved the round and the Ruger and regret getting rid of it. Here of late I've been stalking GunBroker looking at them. I want another but like you said scarce ammo and ridiculous price for brass keeps me away.

I'm a die hard 7 rem mag fan but if ammo was equally available four both I'd take the wsm.

 

[22250Rem]

Never owned one but have seen them and I was always impressed. I've had a 300 WSM in a Savage Mod. 10 since 2004 (it's in my avatar picture) and I love it. I heard 7mm WSM brass was getting hard to find. Could it be formed from 270 WSM brass? Buddy of mine used to own a 270 WSM and that, too, impressed me.

 

[lowmileage]

Back in the early 2000's I owned a Win mod 70 shadow then a Ruger M77 MKII in 7mm WSM. I loved the round and the Ruger and regret getting rid of it. Here of late I've been stalking GunBroker looking at them. I want another but like you said scarce ammo and ridiculous price for brass keeps me away.

I'm a die hard 7 rem mag fan but if ammo was equally available four both I'd take the wsm.

I think mine is the Black Shadow model, it's a push feed, not the claw extractor which doesn't bother me. Very well balanced and shoots the factory Federal 160 grain right out of the box. I have plenty of other rifles to reload for. In a way, nice I don't have to fuss with this. It wears a 3x9 Leupold Vari 2.

 

[lowmileage]

Never owned one but have seen them and I was always impressed. I've had a 300 WSM in a Savage Mod. 10 since 2004 (it's in my avatar picture) and I love it. I heard 7mm WSM brass was getting hard to find. Could it be formed from 270 WSM brass? Buddy of mine used to own a 270 WSM and that, too, impressed me.

According to what I've read, you shouldn't neck up 270 WSM or neck down 300 WSM brass to make 7mm WSM. Either the neck or shoulder won't be correct. You would maybe think it would fire form to correct dimentions.

 

[lowmileage]

How long is the barrel on that M70? I've been thinking it would make a great light weight sheep gun.

Jim, mine's 24", all you need. I wouldn't want anything shorter in this caliber.

 

[mudstud]

According to what I've read, you shouldn't neck up 270 WSM or neck down 300 WSM brass to make 7mm WSM. Either the neck or shoulder won't be correct. You would maybe think it would fire form to correct dimentions.

I also have a 7mm WSM, and I like mine just fine. Mine is a Model 70 Classic Stainless. In my neighborhood, loaded ammo is available, but I haven't seen brass on the shelves in stores in years. However, like I do with other less common calibers I shoot, I stocked up on brass back when it was available. I would be surprised if Winchester doesn't turn out a batch of brass once a year, or so, like they do with some others. Just have to check with the big online dealers periodically.

IIRC, the shoulder on the 7mmWSM is longer than either the 270 or 300 versions. Thus, if you use brass from those other two in a 7mm, you would have excessive headspace. This can be corrected by, say, using 300 brass, and creating a false shoulder on the neck, by sizing the neck down just far enough to where it will chamber, then loading them up and fireforming the brass. I've never had to do this, but it can be done.

 

[jmr40]

Winchester introduced the 300 WSM 1st quickly followed by the 270 WSM. The 7mm WSM was supposed to be introduced shortly after, but it was discovered that a 270 WSM would chamber and fire in 7mm rifles. Since the 270 was already in stores the 7mm version was held back until a slight redesign could be made to prevent this. By the time the 7mm got on the market most of the demand was met. The 7mm WSM is the one most likely to die off. Which is too bad, it may well be the best one.

How long is the barrel on that M70? I've been thinking it would make a great light weight sheep gun.

All the Winchester WSM's have 24" barrels and they actually do quite well from 22" barrels. The 300 WSM was designed 1st. It's sole purpose was to split the difference between 30-06 and 300 WM and do it in lighter mountain weight rifles while keeping recoil manageable. Any of them, in the right rifle, would be a darn good long range mountain gun. But part of the problem is that most manufacturers, and hunters never recognized the purpose. Other than Kimber they keep trying to compete head to head with traditional belted magnums. Most hunters see the WSM's being 100fps slower than the long action belted magnums and ask why?

I realize I'm talking 300 WSM, because that is what I have, but when you compare the 7mm WSM to 7mm RM or 270 to 270 WBY MAG the same principles apply. My 7.5 lb. 30-06 shoots 180's at 2800 fps with 22 ft lbs recoil. My 300 WSM shoots 180's at 2950 fp with 26 ft lbs recoil. A 300 WM shooting 180's at 3050 fps would have 30 ft lbs recoil if all 3 are the same weight. I simply don't notice the 4 ft lbs recoil difference between 30-06 and 300 WSM. But I do notice the 8 ft lbs difference between 30-06 and 300 WM.

I honestly have no need for it, but I ran across this 300WSM rifle and scope for $400 several years ago. It was in the factory tupperware stock and Bubba the gunsmith ruined the stock trying to add a recoil pad. That is why it was so cheap. I bought a used McMillan Edge stock for it a couple of years later. I have about $800 total in everything you see here. It is more rifle than I need, but I just like it and the caliber. Would probably be just as happy if it were 7mm WSM.

If more manufacturers would recognize that the WSM's aren't meant to compete with long action magnums and start offering them in lighter rifles like this I think they'd sell more.

 

[salt&battery]

Mine is a no frills, M70 synthetic stock, blind magazine that was one of the last ones to come out of (RIP) New Haven. Brass is impossible to buy so I've tried 2 difference types of factory ammo. The Fusion 150 grain and the 160 grain Federal Trophy Bonded tip. In my rifle, I think the 160 grain is a HOT load as the bolt becomes hard to lift after firing sometimes. I have an old Chrony and it read 3127 fps which I dont know if I can believe that. It is accurate. 100 yd results.
View attachment 234903 View attachment 234902

A few years ago the army marksmanship team set a record at 1000 yds with the 7MM WSM

 

[Llama Bob]

I don't even recall the 7RSAUM giving up any velocity to the 7RM. Between the increase in MAP and the fact that the 7RM is not actually that hot rodded a cartridge, the RSAUM could keep up. I don't know for sure about the WSM, but I suspect it's the same.

 

[salt&battery]

Winchester introduced the 300 WSM 1st quickly followed by the 270 WSM. The 7mm WSM was supposed to be introduced shortly after, but it was discovered that a 270 WSM would chamber and fire in 7mm rifles. Since the 270 was already in stores the 7mm version was held back until a slight redesign could be made to prevent this. By the time the 7mm got on the market most of the demand was met. The 7mm WSM is the one most likely to die off. Which is too bad, it may well be the best one.
I don't know how many would like a light magnum rifle. easy to carry hard to shoot


All the Winchester WSM's have 24" barrels and they actually do quite well from 22" barrels. The 300 WSM was designed 1st. It's sole purpose was to split the difference between 30-06 and 300 WM and do it in lighter mountain weight rifles while keeping recoil manageable. Any of them, in the right rifle, would be a darn good long range mountain gun. But part of the problem is that most manufacturers, and hunters never recognized the purpose. Other than Kimber they keep trying to compete head to head with traditional belted magnums. Most hunters see the WSM's being 100fps slower than the long action belted magnums and ask why?

I realize I'm talking 300 WSM, because that is what I have, but when you compare the 7mm WSM to 7mm RM or 270 to 270 WBY MAG the same principles apply. My 7.5 lb. 30-06 shoots 180's at 2800 fps with 22 ft lbs recoil. My 300 WSM shoots 180's at 2950 fp with 26 ft lbs recoil. A 300 WM shooting 180's at 3050 fps would have 30 ft lbs recoil if all 3 are the same weight. I simply don't notice the 4 ft lbs recoil difference between 30-06 and 300 WSM. But I do notice the 8 ft lbs difference between 30-06 and 300 WM.

I honestly have no need for it, but I ran across this 300WSM rifle and scope for $400 several years ago. It was in the factory tupperware stock and Bubba the gunsmith ruined the stock trying to add a recoil pad. That is why it was so cheap. I bought a used McMillan Edge stock for it a couple of years later. I have about $800 total in everything you see here. It is more rifle than I need, but I just like it and the caliber. Would probably be just as happy if it were 7mm WSM.

If more manufacturers would recognize that the WSM's aren't meant to compete with long action magnums and start offering them in lighter rifles like this I think they'd sell more.

 

[CptnAwesome]

I think mine is the Black Shadow model, it's a push feed, not the claw extractor which doesn't bother me. Very well balanced and shoots the factory Federal 160 grain right out of the box. I have plenty of other rifles to reload for. In a way, nice I don't have to fuss with this. It wears a 3x9 Leupold Vari 2.

That's the same one I had! Dum dum here got rid of it.

 

[mudstud]

Winchester introduced the 300 WSM 1st quickly followed by the 270 WSM. The 7mm WSM was supposed to be introduced shortly after, but it was discovered that a 270 WSM would chamber and fire in 7mm rifles. Since the 270 was already in stores the 7mm version was held back until a slight redesign could be made to prevent this. By the time the 7mm got on the market most of the demand was met. The 7mm WSM is the one most likely to die off. Which is too bad, it may well be the best one.



All the Winchester WSM's have 24" barrels and they actually do quite well from 22" barrels. The 300 WSM was designed 1st. It's sole purpose was to split the difference between 30-06 and 300 WM and do it in lighter mountain weight rifles while keeping recoil manageable. Any of them, in the right rifle, would be a darn good long range mountain gun. But part of the problem is that most manufacturers, and hunters never recognized the purpose. Other than Kimber they keep trying to compete head to head with traditional belted magnums. Most hunters see the WSM's being 100fps slower than the long action belted magnums and ask why?

I realize I'm talking 300 WSM, because that is what I have, but when you compare the 7mm WSM to 7mm RM or 270 to 270 WBY MAG the same principles apply. My 7.5 lb. 30-06 shoots 180's at 2800 fps with 22 ft lbs recoil. My 300 WSM shoots 180's at 2950 fp with 26 ft lbs recoil. A 300 WM shooting 180's at 3050 fps would have 30 ft lbs recoil if all 3 are the same weight. I simply don't notice the 4 ft lbs recoil difference between 30-06 and 300 WSM. But I do notice the 8 ft lbs difference between 30-06 and 300 WM.

I honestly have no need for it, but I ran across this 300WSM rifle and scope for $400 several years ago. It was in the factory tupperware stock and Bubba the gunsmith ruined the stock trying to add a recoil pad. That is why it was so cheap. I bought a used McMillan Edge stock for it a couple of years later. I have about $800 total in everything you see here. It is more rifle than I need, but I just like it and the caliber. Would probably be just as happy if it were 7mm WSM.

If more manufacturers would recognize that the WSM's aren't meant to compete with long action magnums and start offering them in lighter rifles like this I think they'd sell more.

I always enjoy reading your posts, but however, I would like to make a correction this time. Yeah, I know, I'm picking nits again! Actually, the 7mmWSM was delayed when it was discovered that the 7mmWSM would chamber in the 270WSM rifles, not the other way around. So, the shoulder length was increased on the 7mm to prevent this from happening, which is why when 270/300WSM brass is used to make 7mmWSM brass, a false shoulder must be made in the neck, to fire-form the brass properly.

 

[Gtscotty]

I'd like to try a 7mm WSM, maybe in a Winchester, but as others have said, the scarcity of brass is a real bummer. It's too bad, the new RL26 data for the WSM is pretty impressive, 162gr @ 3,170 fps, and 175gr @ 3,040 fps. Not much will match that in a 7mm short of an STW.

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=40&cartridge=72

 

[mshootnit]

Mine are 270 WSM's. I found brass locally. I didnt say cheap.
I really like the performance of the round so far.
Since .284 and .277 are pretty darned close should be a winner

 

[mshootnit]

Winchester introduced the 300 WSM 1st quickly followed by the 270 WSM. The 7mm WSM was supposed to be introduced shortly after, but it was discovered that a 270 WSM would chamber and fire in 7mm rifles. Since the 270 was already in stores the 7mm version was held back until a slight redesign could be made to prevent this. By the time the 7mm got on the market most of the demand was met. The 7mm WSM is the one most likely to die off. Which is too bad, it may well be the best one.



All the Winchester WSM's have 24" barrels and they actually do quite well from 22" barrels. The 300 WSM was designed 1st. It's sole purpose was to split the difference between 30-06 and 300 WM and do it in lighter mountain weight rifles while keeping recoil manageable. Any of them, in the right rifle, would be a darn good long range mountain gun. But part of the problem is that most manufacturers, and hunters never recognized the purpose. Other than Kimber they keep trying to compete head to head with traditional belted magnums. Most hunters see the WSM's being 100fps slower than the long action belted magnums and ask why?

I realize I'm talking 300 WSM, because that is what I have, but when you compare the 7mm WSM to 7mm RM or 270 to 270 WBY MAG the same principles apply. My 7.5 lb. 30-06 shoots 180's at 2800 fps with 22 ft lbs recoil. My 300 WSM shoots 180's at 2950 fp with 26 ft lbs recoil. A 300 WM shooting 180's at 3050 fps would have 30 ft lbs recoil if all 3 are the same weight. I simply don't notice the 4 ft lbs recoil difference between 30-06 and 300 WSM. But I do notice the 8 ft lbs difference between 30-06 and 300 WM.

I honestly have no need for it, but I ran across this 300WSM rifle and scope for $400 several years ago. It was in the factory tupperware stock and Bubba the gunsmith ruined the stock trying to add a recoil pad. That is why it was so cheap. I bought a used McMillan Edge stock for it a couple of years later. I have about $800 total in everything you see here. It is more rifle than I need, but I just like it and the caliber. Would probably be just as happy if it were 7mm WSM.

If more manufacturers would recognize that the WSM's aren't meant to compete with long action magnums and start offering them in lighter rifles like this I think they'd sell more.

7.5 Scoped aint too shabby... and the Kimbers are even less.

 

[natman]

Taken on its own merits the 7mm WSM is a terrific round. However, the difference between a .277 bullet and a .284 bullet is so small that there just isn't enough difference to justify both rounds in the same type of cartridge:

Short action cartridge 7mm-08 wins
Short action Magnum 270 WSM wins
Long action cartridge 270 Win wins
Long action Magnum 7mm Mag wins

The above is in terms of popularity, so no defense based on the perceived merits of the less popular cartridge is necessary.

Nothing wrong with the cartridge itself, just no niche big enough to generate enough demand.

 

[lowmileage]

7.5 Scoped aint too shabby... and the Kimbers are even less.

Big difference is weight between my A-Bolt 300 Win Mag and the M70 7mm WSM. The 7 weighs 6 3/4 (without scope, mounts and ammo) to start vs. at least 7 1/4 lbs for the 300. It just feels like a whole lot less and better balanced. All subjective of course.

 

[mshootnit]

Yes. At least 7 1/4 for the 300 WM.
A Kimber really grows on you. Especially if you are 5'9".

 

[mshootnit]

And I am not knocking the bigger guns, they fit for other fellows. But for me, 270 WSM performance in a short action is Ideal. I believe my Kimber gives up a round of capacity, but not my Montana.
My Montana Extreme X2 270 WSM is going in for a McMillan stock in McMillan camo. Going to put a silver Zeiss on it. Can't wait!