Sako 85 Grey Wolf Rifle in 300 WSM or 300 Win Mag??

[folsoh]

My question is 300 WSM or 300 Win Mag. Every person has there preference and I still am like 75% WSM and this little voice 25% that says don't buy a fad buy the 300 Win Mag its tried and true.

I will be using the rifle to hunt elk, antelope, white tail deer and mule deer and anything else I can draw a tag for at ranges up to 500 yards.

Ballistic ally they both seem to be about the same. Both boxes of high end ammo run about the same in price. Seems like 300 Win Mag can be bought anywhere now a days. The only difference I see with the WSM is the short cartridge cycling through rifle faster.

 

[HKGuns]

I prefer short actions in a bolt gun as opposed to long actions. Great rifle choice regardless of caliber chosen.

 

[urbaneruralite]

I'd go WSM. It may not be a huge improvement, but it is a step in a good direction.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

How much of a fraction of a sec longer will it take to work the bolt on the WM?
How much more will the WM ammo be available?
What is the rifle you have found? Which do you like better?
Are you reloading? How much powder can you save with the WSM?
Is there a great cost difference in gun? In ammo? In components?

My calculus would lead me to the WM...

Greg

 

[JeeperCreeper]

That's a tough one....

-Since they are on the same model of rifle, that keeps things pretty equal on that front.
-300 Win Mag has been around a while and ammo is much easier to find, especially if you want a specific factory load.
-300 WSM gives up nothing in performance and the shorter action doesn't hurt
-I've heard rumors that the short magnums were tougher on the actions than standard magnums, but I am no physicist and for a hunting rifle, it won't matter as it won't shoot 1,000s of rounds a year.

If it were me, I'd go 300 Win Mag, just because ammo selection seems the easiest and everthing else seems even. But either way, there is no wrong answer.

 

[atomchaser]

If you are going to be hiking with it a lot I'd get the 300 WSM. A bit lighter and more compact. I don't think ammo is much of an issue. Every Walmart I've been in carries it.
Ammo to me is not much of a concern. I can't think of many situations were you can't take sufficient ammo with you. I suppose if you are going on Safari and the airline lost your bag with the ammo in it, it might cause an issue.

 

[jmr40]

I've had both, currently have a 300 WSM and wouldn't go back. The 300 WSM will be about 50 fps slower with the best loads, but that isn't enough to change trajectory enough to matter. Nor will any game animal notice the difference.

But you will notice the recoil difference. To get that extra 50 fps the 300 WM needs 10-15 gr more powder. Run the numbers through a recoil calculation program and the 50 fps combined with less powder means recoil almost exactly half way between 30-06 and 300 WM.

Real numbers I've ran with my guns. Both the 30-06 and 300 WSM weigh 7.5 lbs including scopes and mounts. I don't currently own a 300 WM, but used data from my loading manuals to calculate recoil from an equal weight rifle.

30-06/180@ 2800 fps----22 ft lbs recoil
300 WSM/180 @ 2950fps-----26 ft lbs recoil
300WM/180@ 3000 fps-------30 ft lbs recoil

It is possible to squeeze 75-100 fps more speed from all of these, but those are the actual loads I use in 30-06 and 300 WSM. I tried to keep things as comparable as possible.

Honestly, I just don't notice the recoil between 30-06 and 300 WSM. I can tolerate 300 WM recoil, but I notice the difference between 22 ft lbs of recoil and 30 ft lbs. The 150 fps increase in speed vs 30-06 is worth 4 ft lbs more recoil to me. The 200 fps more speed vs 30-06 is not worth 8 ft lbs more recoil to me.

There are some issues with 300 WSM. Rick Jamison developed the round in the 1990's and patented the idea. He offered to sell the idea to Winchester which declined. Winchester copied his round and introduced the 300 WSM. Jamison sued and won. Until the patent expires in a few years he gets a royalty for each rifle and box of ammo sold. That is why ammo is about $2/box more and why fewer companies offer the chambering. They make less on each rifle sold, or have to charge more.

This is why Ruger developed the Ruger Compact Magnums and Remington the their short action magnums. They didn't want to pay the royalties and developed similar rounds to compete with WSM's.

I honestly believe that after the patent issue has expired that the WSM's will take off and become very popular. I believe that in another generation it will surpass the 300 WM in popularity and make a big dent in 30-06.

 

[folsoh]

Great Info

JMR40

Thanks for the great information. I did not have any idea the recoil issue existed or that there was a patent war involved.

Please keep your comments coming.

 

[MCMXI]

At one point I had three rifles chambered in .300 Win Mag and two in 300 WSM. I'm down to an AI in .300 WM and a Kimber Montana in 300 WSM. I doubt I'll buy another 300 WSM but another .300 WM is in my future. The .300 Win Mag easily handles bullet weights in the 165gr to 220gr range and rifles chambered for that cartridge tend to feed better than the shorter and fatter 300 WSM. I like the 300 WSM but prefer the .300 WM. Felt recoil comparing the two is much more a function of rifle/stock design than anything else.

Note: I work for a firearms company and worked for Remington for two years and yet I've never heard of paying royalties for WSMs.

 

[browningguy]

The win mag is my choice. The WSM is almost as much gun, but only with the lighter weight bullets, and I generally prefer 180 gr. in my .300.

Ammo availability may be a concern, but as long as you keep a good stock you'll be ok. Thinking you are saving weight, or cycling the action faster for the short action is simply wishful thinking, maybe an ounce or two of weight and a couple of hundred milliseconds in time, not even worth thinking about.

 

[ExAgoradzo]

The only reason I would own a 300 mag of any kind would be to shoot the 200 or 220 bullet. A .30-06 has been proven to handle the 165-180 bullet fine. I've never shot the WSM of any kind, though would be happy to. It just seems to me if you want to go big, go big. Now that I shoot 225gr in a 338 WM it seems less important to own a 300 mag.

Again, YMMV.
Greg

 

[tark]

I do not hunt and I have never owned a rifle in either caliber, but there is something about these new "Short Mag" and "Super Short Mag" cartridges everyone should be aware of.

They place an enormous extra strain on the gun, primarily the locking lugs on the bolt. Examples.

A 30-06 loaded to 50,000 PSI has a static thrust against the bolt of 10,560 pounds, for a fraction of an instant. A five ton push doing it's best to shear the lugs off the bolt and insert it in your face.

A .300 Win Mag, with a larger area for the pressure to push on, has over 14,200 pounds of static thrust .

A 300 Super Short Magnum probably has way more than that.

How much pressure can those locking lugs hold, and for how long??

It just makes me kind of nervous..

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I should say .300 Win Mag wins in ammo "selection" as opposed to "availability"... Since that seems to be a hot debating point.

But.... The WSM is intriguing!!!

Get both!!!

 

[CaliCoastie]

Op, with what you stated? Id lean toasts the 300 wsm. Less weight pays dividends the longer you carry it.

Tark? You state they put more strain on the locking lugs, then fail with anything to back it up? Just scratching my head here. Would just like to see some data.

 

[jehu]

I have and hunt with a Grey Wolf in 300win mag. With 180grain Winchester Silvertips it is sub moa and a hammer on Whitetail deer out to 600-700yds. The recoil never bothered me but I now shoot it suppressed and it's like shooting a 22mag.

 

[Casefull]

I've had both, currently have a 300 WSM and wouldn't go back. The 300 WSM will be about 50 fps slower with the best loads, but that isn't enough to change trajectory enough to matter. Nor will any game animal notice the difference.

I also have both and reload for each. My wsm actually is faster by 100 fps with 180 ttsx bullets than the wm is. Wm is 24 inch custom 700 rem. Wsm is Kimber montana with 24 barrel. The superformance powder works magic in the short case wsm. I am getting 3200 fps with the 180g bullets, no pressure signs, and tight groups. I know it is hard to believe.

 

[dvdcrr]

If it were me, I would go with 300 WSM. Shorter lighter rifle. Cartridge is modern beltless magnum.

 

[Corn-Picker]

If it were me I'd choose the WSM, but I like to walk a lot when I hunt. Less weight, less overall length, and less recoil with equivalent performance -- why not. The 300 WSM appears to be about the fourth most popular 30 caliber based on the number of ammo choices available on Midway, behind the 308, 30-06, and 300 WM. The 300 WSM even has more loadings available than the 30-30, and is by far the most popular from the WSM line, so I don't see it going anywhere for a long long time. All that being said I don't own either, so I woild be interested to know if there was some show stopper (e.g. common feeding problems) associated with the 300 WSM I don't know about.

 

[natman]

I do not hunt and I have never owned a rifle in either caliber, but there is something about these new "Short Mag" and "Super Short Mag" cartridges everyone should be aware of.

They place an enormous extra strain on the gun, primarily the locking lugs on the bolt. Examples.

A 30-06 loaded to 50,000 PSI has a static thrust against the bolt of 10,560 pounds, for a fraction of an instant. A five ton push doing it's best to shear the lugs off the bolt and insert it in your face.

A .300 Win Mag, with a larger area for the pressure to push on, has over 14,200 pounds of static thrust .

A 300 Super Short Magnum probably has way more than that.

Why should a 300 WSM (there is no "300 Super Short Magnum") have more bolt thrust than a 300 Win Mag?

 

[H&Hhunter]

Well lets see.....

1. The WSM under performs the WM across the spectrum of bullet weights.
2. The WSM has feed and function issues that WM does not.
3. Most WSM rifles are NOT built on a short action. They are built on a standard action just like the WM.
4. Even if the rifle is built on a short action. Does anybody here actually believe that the rifle is going to lose enough weight or gain enough bolt cycle speed to make a noticeable difference? Based on a .25", 1/4" difference in bolt length? I'd be willing to bet that the shot clock and the scale will reveal the ugly truth and that the WSM does not gain you ANY advantage.
5. My experience with WSM is that it does not feed as slick as the WM and any perceived extra speed in feed due to length is lost due to the stubby case design.

It is amazing that a 185Lb man who's ideal weight is 165lbs would worry about a rifle that is 1/2Lb heavier. When in reality if he wants to hunt the high country the real key is not 1/2lb of extra rifle weight. The key to a successful high country hunt is losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 20% more fitness. Once you do that you could carry a 10Lb rifle and not notice it as much as your flabby out of shape butt will notice your 8.5Lb rifle after scaling a mountain.

I am totally over ultra light weight rifles. When it comes to mountain hunting the challenge is to trim yourself and shoot the rifle you shoot best.

About the only place that a light weight rifle has any use is a prolonged high country backpack hunt like this.


Hunting for species like these.


But I'd rather be in shape and carry an 8 or 9lb rifle that I can shoot well than carry a whipy, little, finicky ultralight weight. The rifle i carried on this solo goat hunt is a .270 Weatherby with a 26" barrel that weighs in right at 9 lbs. The key to success was losing 20 lbs and spending all summer prior to the hunt summitting 14,000' peaks with a 70 lb pack on. Conditioning and mindset are the key.

 

[natman]

Well lets see.....

1. The WSM under performs the WM across the spectrum of bullet weights.
2. The WSM has feed and function issues that WM does not.
3. Most WSM rifles are NOT built on a short action. They are built on a standard action just like the WM.
4. Even if the rifle is built on a short action. Does anybody here actually believe that the rifle is going to lose enough weight or gain enough bolt cycle speed to make a noticeable difference? Based on a .25", 1/4" difference in bolt length? I'd be willing to bet that the shot clock and the scale will reveal the ugly truth and that the WSM does not gain you ANY advantage.

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.
2. A point that had some validity when the WSMs very first came out, long since corrected, now a myth.
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.

http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/detail.asp?family=001C&mid=535200

Same thing for Browning. AFAIK, the only 300 WSMs that are built on long actions are guns that are not offered in short actions.

4. Now we've ventured into the realm of opinion. The differences between short and long action guns are real, whether they are important to you or not.

It is amazing that a 185Lb man who's ideal weight is 165lbs would worry about a rifle that is 1/2Lb heavier.

Perhaps to you. To me if you hunt in high country you should be concerned with the weight of ALL your equipment, not just your rifle. The assumption that anyone who has the sense to watch equipment weight MUST be out of shape and overweight is unfounded.

When in reality if he wants to hunt the high country the real key is not 1/2lb of extra rifle weight. The key to a successful high country hunt is losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 20% more fitness. Once you do that you could carry a 10Lb rifle and not notice it as much as your flabby out of shape butt will notice your 8.5Lb rifle after scaling a mountain.
....
But I'd rather be in shape and carry an 8 or 9lb rifle that I can shoot well than carry a whipy, little, finicky ultralight weight.

It's not an either/or choice. I agree completely that getting in shape is crucial. It doesn't rule out being in shape AND carrying a rifle of reasonable weight. I'm not sure how we got from saving half a pound to " a whipy, little, finicky ultralight weight".

I respect your experience, but that doesn't excuse using sloppy logic and untrue "facts" to support your argument. Let's look at it this way: What you're arguing is that everyone should carry a longer, heavier rifle in order to gain, well, nothing.

 

[atomchaser]

The Sako 300 WSM in built on a specific Short Magnum action that is shorter than the Magnum action. I agree with all the pleadings about getting in shape for rugged hunting but carrying an extra couple pounds with our arms or hanging off your shoulder or pack is a different ergonomic issue than a few pounds of fat distributed around your torso.

 

[H&Hhunter]

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?

 

[MCMXI]

Why should a 300 WSM (there is no "300 Super Short Magnum") have more bolt thrust than a 300 Win Mag?

It doesn't. The case head is basically the same diameter (.532 vs. .535) and the SAAMI max pressures are virtually the same (64 ksi vs. 65 ksi). In theory the difference is negligible at about 400lb in favor of the 300 WSM.

 

[H&Hhunter]

It boils down to this

There is no functional, real world difference between the WSM and the WM in either performance or platform. So get the one that you want. The end result will be the same on game.