natman,
The assumption that anyone who has the sense to watch equipment weight MUST be out of shape and overweight is unfounded
And with that as mentioned, you have wandered into the realm of assumption. All gear weight should be taken into account. My point is that a
standard WSM doesn't save enough weight over over a
standard .300 WM to warrant it's existence on that fact alone. You can make a .300 WM just as light as you can make a WSM with modification, you can make either extremely light. And with that, just like a tent or a pair of boots, it doesn't matter how light they are if they don't provide the utility that you, the user personally prefer. I prefer a standard weight 8 lb to 9lb ish, all in, rifle for serious work. (Opinion?? YES of course it's my opinion based on real world experience, mileage may vary. That is what the internet is all about, sharing of opinions, it's the net afterall, not a court case......)
1. Both Winchester and Federal list the WSM as being slightly faster than the Win Mag, at least with 180 grain bullets. The difference, if any, is negligible.
That has not been my experience when a Chronograph is introduced into the argument. Once again the differences have been negligible in real world terms, even with 200 gr bullets. And when we are talking inconsequential increments a lot of it has to do with individual rifles, barrels chambers ETC.
2. A point that had some validity when the WSMs very first came out, long since corrected, now a myth.
That has not been my experience with various WSM's. And I'll agree that it is mostly negligible under hunting conditions.
3. Simply not true. Here's Winchester's spec sheet. Note that the 300 WSM is half an inch shorter than the 300 Win Mag with the same barrel length. Why? Because it's built on a shorter action.
Okay lets call it a 1/2" and that buys you what exactly in real world terms? Not inconsequential increments, but real life utility? 1/2" or approximately 1/2 the length of the tip of your thumb. Not a deal maker or breaker for me. But lets take a look at that below with some real world data. which of course can be factually modified to fit your argument as needed. I can find you a factory Wm that is lighter and shorter and if you dig you can find a WSM that lighter and shorter BUT none of them are lighter or shorter enough to make any real world difference.
What you're arguing is that everyone should carry a longer, heavier rifle in order to gain, well, nothing.
Nope, what I'm saying is that the logic that most folks use to buy a WSM over a WM is flawed. That you are not gaining enough anywhere to buy a .300 WSM based solely on it's perceived advantages of being shorter and lighter. If you want a WSM simply because you want a WSM or hate belts then by all means get one. But don't come to me claiming shorter and lighter because there isn't enough of either to matter.
Let us compare from the Winchester website...
Caliber
300 Win Mag
Barrel Length
26"
Nominal Overall Length
46 3/4"
Weight
7 lbs 4 oz
Magazine Capacity
3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caliber
300 WSM
Barrel Length
24"
Nominal Overall Length
44 1/4"
Weight
7 lbs 0 oz
Magazine Capacity
3
So if we make the barrels even at 24" each, which a .300 WM does just fine with, the difference will be about 3 OZ maybe slightly less or more OZ as we'd lose a bit of weight with the barrel bob, and 1/4" (.25"). Not enough for me to worry about as mentioned above. And nowhere near a "couple of pounds" as mentioned by atomchaser above either.
I'm not sure how we got from saving half a pound to " a whipy, little, finicky ultralight weight".
It doesn't, my comment above was that I am over ultra lightweight rifles. I tried them and they simply don't work for me. Sorry for the confusion and..Opinion once again based on experience. Therefore If I am going to carry a rifle it might as well be a standard weight rifle and it might as well be one that I shoot really well, as that is more important to me than saving a pound or two on an ultra light weight. I'll make my total weight savings else where like a highly expensive and super light weight expedition tent, or highly over priced carbon fiber trekking poles and outrageously expensive light weight tech clothing.
Every one of my facts is defensible as shown above and every one of my facts is refutable as well, that is the essence of debate and information sharing. making the statement that I am being untruthful is, well, untruthful. As far as your claim that my logic is "fuzzy", I'll just say that my logic has been built upon by real life experience in real life hunting conditions. If my logic seems fuzzy to you, the reason is most likely that we have different life experiences. I'll also say that of the real life high country serious sheep and goat hunters that I know about half are in the carry a standard weight rifle camp and the other half are in the ultra light weight camp. It boils down to opinion, and preference based on experience. But opinion becomes less relevant without real world experience, in my opinion.
So ask yourself. What rifle did you carry on your last long range, solo, pack in, high altitude, above treeline, mountain hunt?