Have any of you guys compared the peformance of the .300 WSM to the .300 Win Mag in practical, hands-on situations?
Actually, my head is big and round.223 fan said:Since theres ZERO need of anything LIKE 1 MOA accuracy for big game, or even coyote sized varmints, and no NEED to take small varmints at long range, what's the point of sub-MOA 243,hmm? There aint any. It's all some bs that gunwriters have managed to stuff into your pointy little head, that's all.
That's what I was after, GB. As you may have guessed, I'm working, formally now, toward a new long-range rifle. My .300 that you saw is on its second barrel, and while I still enjoy and use it, I would like to try the WSM. No point in building that on a long action, so ... Was just curious if, an a very macro sense, I could expect performance of the .300 WSM to be close enough to my .300 Win ballistics out past 600 yards that the .300 cam for my Leupold M3 would still get me on paper. Under 600 is not going to be a big deal I don't imagine.GBullet said:Jon, if they shoot the same bullet, the ballistics will be almost the same. The WSM and WSSM shorty cartridges have all been designed to replicate the velocity/energy of popular cartridges.
Yes. I would not even consider taping antlers on my head and walking through any of my fields in which you and that little rifle are standing guard.GBullet said:You saw what my WSSM did.