compare calibers

kyzzerr

needing some info and comparisons on the 300wsm, compared to a 30-06 and a regular 300 win. all shot from the same type rifles. recoil, knockdown power, accuracy. i'm looking at a 300wsm, i have had both a 30-06 and a 300win, but no exp. with a 300wsm. thanks

sandwarrior

kyzzerr,

Owning all three and loading for them too I will give you what I know. First you are going to gain about 2-300 fps with either mag over the 30-06. At a cost of about 20-25 grs. of powder to get it done with any given bullet. In trying to compare the standard recoil here I'm sort of out of whack. I have a very light 30-06 that kicks more than others I've shot and my .300 Win mag has a muzzle brake that knocks recoil down to below a .223. My 300 WSM is about normal and it kicks pretty good. More than my light 30-06.

The thing I like about the magnums is they will push heavier more ballisticly efficient bullets out at the same speed lighter bullets come out os a 30-06. I load 180's from my 30-06 out at 2750 and 208 Amax's from my .300 Win Mag at 2780. I was pushing 180 accubonds out of my 300 WSM at 3016. Which is just below factory I believe. The 300 Win mag can produce more velocity than the WSM's I believe. That doesn't make that statement true, just what I have found. Part of the difference here too is that my 30-06 has a 22" barrel and my .300's both have 26" barrels. That is something to consider if you are out buying a new rifle. If you decide to go with the 30-06, get the longer barrel for better velocity. That is, unless you need a short barrel for thick woods hunting. I would still recommend a 24" barrel in that case then.

Bottom line is you get more power from the mags and more recoil. You would need to decide for yourself how recoil tolerant you are and how much shooting you would like to do. Even a 30-06 in a heavy rifle seems to kick a lot more when shot 50-60 times in a day.

Something to consider, when this subject has come up in the past, JustC and nononsense have advocated looking into the RSAUM, or the Remington short Mag. The RSAUM's claim to effiency is what has kept them going in the long range shooting world where the WSM's have kind of dropped off. I understand they keep pretty close to the Win mag and the WSM in velocity. Less powder equals less recoil if that matters. Less powder also means less barrel wear.

EDIT:

Wow! nn, that guy really posted a lot of info. I have to say if you're not a reloader and just buy factory ammo it may be an overall relative comparison to read. What I felt though is that he never nailed down factory vs. factory with the same bullet. That way you narrow it down to the cartridge and not bullet efficiency. Barrel length between cartridges wasn't addressed that well either. I can't see for instance a 180 Accubond dropping off 100 fps more than the same 180 Accubond in the other caliber launched at 20-30 fps slower. Or, the same thing with a given bullet loaded in each in 165 gr. or 150 gr. I see that a lot when marketers get hold of the program, though.

nononsense

kyzzerr,

I was going to C&P this but you should read the whole post in its original context:

http://www.handloadersbench.com/forum5/184.html#

This is short comparison:

.300 WSM performance comparisons Cartridge #8595; Bullet Weight #8595; Muzzle velocity #8595; Muzzle energy #8595;
.300 WSM 200 2822 3538
.300 RSAUM 200 2790 3458
.300 Win Mag 200 2877 3677
.300 Wby Mag 200 2987 3963
.300 RUM 200 3154 4419

From Accurate Arms Reloading manual.

Here is a good comparison chart:

http://www.browning.com/products/features/detail.asp?ID=5

Best.