New Remington .300 Ultra Mag vs.Winchester 300 wsm

bohunter7

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Has anyone tried the new REM .300 Ultra Mag or Winchester 300 WSM? Anyone have any likes or dis likes for these calibers? How about the Winchester M-70 rifle in 300 WSM? Or Rem .300Ultra Mag On the REM 700 frame.
 



Bou

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
I haven't tried either of these rounds but they sound great. There's a good article in Rifle mag or Handloader. It was either Sept or Oct issue I think.
 

songdog

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
0
Any bets on which one will be around in 20 years?  Sounds a lot like the .243 vs. 6mm of years ago.
 

Brian S

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2001
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
0
Whats the deal with these cartridges are they more efficient because of thier configuration and don't need as much powder. Something like a .308 and a 30-06.  Or are they just cool because they look different and have a new name. I heard they are going to come out with a .270 wsm or ultra rem. next. I have a .270 Ackley mag and it takes allot more powder to do just a little more in the chronograph.
Brian S
 

bohunter7

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
The companies claim the new case shape allows them to shoot as flat as the 300 win-mag, but have the kick of an ordinary 30-06. The balistics charts seem to prove that, but I have found anyone yet who owns one to confirm this.
 

songdog

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
0
I don't think that anyone has been saying that they'll kick less (I could have just missed it though), rather it's that you can use a short action vs. a long action, thereby saving weight and length.

I suppose that there's some legitimacy to the argument that it could be a slightly more efficient and accurate cartridge due to the short stumpy case and powder column.  Just like the .22 PPC vs. a .223/.222.  It's shorter and fatter and the powder burns a little more efficiently.  That's great when you're trying to get groups from .2" down to .1" but with a .30 caliber "hunting" round, I suspect nobody will be able to discern the difference.

Ironically, there are really only two "major" .277 caliber rounds out there.  Winchester's and Weatherby's.  Even .277 caliber wildcats are pretty rare.  Maybe that's because the original .270 Winchester works so well?:wink-yellow:  Sorry, Jack O'Conner is my hero



(Edited by songdog at 11:38 am on Oct. 30, 2001)
 

Hook

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
0
I havent used any of these rounds, however they are comparativley close to each other. It just comes down to personal preference. Not much difference in velocities and if you reload you might opt for the WSM.

My choice would be the WSM in a classic stainless. I like the Classic action. And reloading with less powder.
 

MNHNTR

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
813
Reaction score
1
I been looking hard at these two rounds and I will probably chose the winchester although I am tempted by a remington 30.06 in titanium at Turners.   I also read that because the powder column burns better there is less recoil.
 

Bou

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
That titanium rifle is nice huh. I liked it too, sure would've made walking in the tundra easier.
 

MNHNTR

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
813
Reaction score
1
The rifle was sooo lite I could not believe it. After carrying my bar the past few weekends it is very tempting.  Bet it kicks like crazy though.
 

Bou

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
Yeah that's what I thought too. But on a hunting trip where you need to hump alot it would probably be worth it. It's possible that the stock design might help with the kick. Hard to tell until you get it out on the range. All I know is when the adrenaline is pumping you really don't feel the recoil that much. LOL

(Edited by Bou at 9:48 pm on Oct. 31, 2001)
 


Top Bottom