Thread: 300 wsm vs 300 win mag at 22 inches

Hi All,

Was wondering if someone could help me with the maths? Keen to understand which cartridge would likely perform better out of a 22 inch barrel, pushing a 180 grain projectile?

Thanks in advance

If handloading, probably the 300WM. It's got more powder space for extra horsepower, pressures being roughly equal.

In factory ammo, pressures are not equal, WSM is loaded hotter closing the gap and producing nearly identical performance.

Would the wm burn all it's powder in 22"?
Might not be much in it at that length. Quickload would be the go I guess

Originally Posted by Dusty Fog

youre wrong,,more is not always better n the wsm is superior with short barrel

Run it through GRT or QuickLoad and see what you come up with

The other thing to also remember is that the WSM gains extra barrel length over the Win mag simply because of its shorter cartridge length. 1/2" longer effective barrel length straight out of the box to start with before even comparing internal ballistics.

Quickload is great, and I did this exact comparison two nights ago after a short barrelled WSM was offered on here.

But you have to remember that everything is (a) a function of which component combo you choose; (b) which is heavily affected by what's available in these trying times, and (c) how accurate your assumptions are, particularly fired case volume and powder burn rate, which varies more than you'd think lot by lot and is not that well covered by QL (some of the burn rates Helmut has in the app are just way out).

A Quickload analysis of these two fine cartridges basically said to me "no deer is ever gonna know the difference" so I'd go with WSM based on likely overall rifle ergonomics.

And it's worth pointing out... just for shits n giggles, that the world record 1000yd shooter (earlier this year).... like incredible.... shoots a .300 WSM. Irrelevant, but telling nonetheless. Setup right, it's always a shooter's accuracy that counts, certainly more than a few foot pounds here and there.

Bloody good feedback, really appreciate it.
All things considered, I think I’ll chamber in 300 wsm.

Thanks again

Good call. A 20 inch 300wsm was going to be next on my list if I wasn't happy with the 7mm saum. Thanks the saum meets the criteria perfectly for me

That 300wsm sako on here!

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Quickload is great, and I did this exact comparison two nights ago after a short barrelled WSM was offered on here.

But you have to remember that everything is (a) a function of which component combo you choose; (b) which is heavily affected by what's available in these trying times, and (c) how accurate your assumptions are, particularly fired case volume and powder burn rate, which varies more than you'd think lot by lot and is not that well covered by QL (some of the burn rates Helmut has in the app are just way out).

A Quickload analysis of these two fine cartridges basically said to me "no deer is ever gonna know the difference" so I'd go with WSM based on likely overall rifle ergonomics.

And it's worth pointing out... just for shits n giggles, that the world record 1000yd shooter (earlier this year).... like incredible.... shoots a .300 WSM. Irrelevant, but telling nonetheless. Setup right, it's always a shooter's accuracy that counts, certainly more than a few foot pounds here and there.

Mark and Sam in Aussie have found short and fat beats long and skinny (stop it you sickos) in the testing they’ve done, admittedly not very scientific but they test quite a few different calibres at ridiculous ranges. Just the other day they were poking out 220gr from 300wsm at 2950, barrel wasn’t crazy long at 27”

Originally Posted by McNotty

Mark and Sam in Aussie have found short and fat beats long and skinny (stop it you sickos) in the testing they’ve done, admittedly not very scientific but they test quite a few different calibres at ridiculous ranges. Just the other day they were poking out 220gr from 300wsm at 2950, barrel wasn’t crazy long at 27”

That’s certainly true, just look at all the classic benchrest cartridges.

Mark & Sam are very good at hitting big steel plates a long way away, but I’m not sure how good they’d be at achieving this:

Originally Posted by McNotty

Mark and Sam in Aussie have found short and fat beats long and skinny (stop it you sickos) in the testing they’ve done, admittedly not very scientific but they test quite a few different calibres at ridiculous ranges. Just the other day they were poking out 220gr from 300wsm at 2950, barrel wasn’t crazy long at 27”

The data I have says the 'short and fat' 300WSM has no velocity difference over the 'long and slender' 300 H&H (similar 300WM).

February 2007, No 245 on pages 95, 96 and 97 of 'Handloader' Magazine:

The 300 H&H and 300 WSM have virtually the same case capacity. Both chambers were given the same amount of throat.

Using the 180 grain Nosler Partition:
.300 WSM RL-19 at 67.0 grains gave 2,918 fps at 56,064 psi Velocity spread 13 fps.

.300 H&H Rl-19 at 67.0 grains gave 2,914 fps at 57,177 psi, Velocity spread 9 fps."

Mark and Sam also shot 300 wm and 300 prc side by side. When throated equally, the 300 win mag is marginally better despite what the theory suggests.
Also if you have slow barrel in win mag and a fast barrel in 300wsm ( or the other way around) you could have results from 50 up to 100 fps of difference .

I'd pick my desired platform and then determine what the best option is. For hunting use it wont matter a bit and you may reduce the choice as you go through the selection process.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

That’s certainly true, just look at all the classic benchrest cartridges.

Mark & Sam are very good at hitting big steel plates a long way away, but I’m not sure how good they’d be at achieving this:

Attachment 170962

That is phenomenal!