Have any of you guys compared the peformance of the .300 WSM to the .300 Win Mag in practical, hands-on situations?
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.
Right, but issues of angles and slopes can be largely eliminated, or at least dealt with, via precalculated data and practice. Also, a short ranges, say out to 400, rests of opportunity, kneeling position, and especially seated positions (I use two separate ones depending on the situation) are extremely effective, especially if one knows how to properly use a Ching sling.223 fan said:not to mention up and down angles, and SHOOTER ERROR, and not being able to SEE anything from the prone position, or in a lot of cases for "uphill" shots, even get the gun's butt low enough to get "on" target.