.7mm wsm or 300 wsm

[deerhunterian]

I am 14 and i am looking to get a new rifle. I would like to either get a .7mm wsm or a 300 wsm. I am plaining on using it on all big game animals. Im not worried about the recoil, i just want to know witch one is better. I would also like to know what brand of rifle to go with. I am on a $600-$700 bugget . I would like any suggestions.

[dubyam]

If you don't handload, get the 300WSM. I will caution you, unless you are familiar with these kinds of rifles, and able to handle the recoil, start with something easier on the shoulder, so your shooting form doesn't suffer. You can get most all the performance of these two from the 7-08 and 308, or 280 and 30-06, without the excessive recoil, and at a substantial savings in ammo cost. If you are able to shoot the magnums well, either of the two will do what you ask, but unless you handload, you want the 300, as the 7 is just about gone in terms of factory ammo.

[blkdia]

Good advice Dubyam, the point has been made numerous times, the young guys always seem to think magnum means better. I'm not knocking this young feller, but at 14, I believe he would be better off perfecting his shooting abilities for a while, before jumping into a gun that may cause flinching problems at a young age. Choose what you want, thats your business, but just so you know, an animal shot at normal ranges, out to 300 yards, has no idea if he was killed by a 30-06 or a .50 Mcmillin! LOL!

[d2huffman]

I would concure with both of the replys above and add 2+s's to the '06 recommendations. Even without reloading, you can get premium loads that make this a very versital gun and keeps the recoil down. Save the magnum purchase until you have better settled into hunting and refined what you are pursuing. Note - it looks like the 7mm wsm is dying out. the 2 best bets for wsm are 270 and 300.

[dubyam]

As an aside, the 7WSM is dying out, but it is a real shame. That one cartridge is really the only one out of the short mag craze from both companies that is really an improvement over what is readily available otherwise. As a handloader, I find the 7WSM to be every bit the equal to the 7Wby, and exceeds the 7RemMag by a noticeable amount across the board. It seems to be the only short mag of any kind that is able to hold on to its velocity improvements into the heaviest bullets. Even the 270WSM, arguably the most successful of the short-fats, sits squarely between the 270Win and 270Wby, and loses out a shade more with the heaviest projectiles for that caliber. Seems a shame that the best of the breed is the one that didn't make it, while others which fall short (pardon the pun) of improving on what exists, seem to enjoy commercial success. Go figure.

[rem 700]

I probably wouldn't get either of these if you don't handload because of the price of ammo. Both are suitable for game up to elk and moose. I kind of like the 7mm calibers more, but 30 is good too, and the 300 WSM is easier to find. I would consider rifles from Remington, Savage, and perhaps Winchester if you can find one. The guys above have a point, that lesser cartridges can do the same thing, but I say go for it; get something a little different.

[jrod76]

If you are set on a wsm, I recommend the .300. But I do agree with the above metioned '06 recommendation. As far as make, you owe it to yourself to pick up a tikka and see how it fits you. I spent about $570 on mine in .300 short mag, and i love it. If you get composite and stainless you will have a gun that will be fairly low maintanence for the next 50 years. Good luck.

[ron]

Just like JRod, I also have a 300 WSM T3 Tikka Stainless Lite. It is one of my favorites because it is definitely a shooter. The thing you might want to watch, though is that they only weigh 6 lbs 4 oz. That is quite lite for a centerfire. You haven't responded to how you stand up to recoil so if you're ok with the recoil, I would say buy a Tikka. If you are not, then you might want to look for one of them that is over 7 lbs. Most of the rest are but check out their weight first. The only brand that weighs over 7 lbs that I can personally vouch for it's overall accuracy is the Browning A Bolt. Not trying to start a debate here. Just stating my own personal experience.

[huntinny]

I would also recommend something with a little less recoil- .260-.270-7mm-08-.308 range, then upgrade to the magnum. I would also stick with the browning, rems or tikka.

[MOhunter]

i think the 7mm is losing out because it's only competion is the rem mag and lets fase it the 7mm rem is like the 30-06 of metric cartridges. you just cant kill it.

go 7mm only wsm realy worth buying. if your thinking 300 just get the regular 300 winmag.

oh and shoot it first. if you can take it great, but if you reach for the 243 don't be ashamed. i will never discourage trying. just don't buy without shooting. don't wanna spend money on something you wont shoot.

[DblLung]

skip the shorties start with the standard the only thing they accomplish is selling new guns. That said tikka, savage, vangard, and ruger 77 are all great rifles.

[MOhunter]

prolly the 270 is really the only decent step up in a common rifle. iirc the 270 weatherby still lays the smakdown but i've only seen it in a custom or weatherby brand, and them can be $$$$

[700xcr]

For the price range you requested get a Remington 700 sps in blued or stainless. A 270 win. or 30-06. I have the Remington 700xcr in 270wsm and my 16yr. old son wants to take it over. I told him no. Start with a standard caliber. Heck my dad started me at same age as you with a 7x57 mauser. Then at age of 17 I used a Remington 700 BDL 30-06 .

[mtnwalker]

I'd probably say that at your age I'd get a good general capability gun that you can learn to shoot well all the time.....later on get a gun that is more capable for larger game...if you really need it.
learning how to flinch does not help when learning how to kill.
If you really grow into a regular shooter you will eventually have plenty of guns...that's just how it goes.
My first deer gun (30-30 Marlin) did just fine for my first few, and about a million for others over the years. My 30-06 does fine now.
If you really get into shooting, you'll eventually get all the guns you care about getting. Just don't "kick" yourself out of the sport by trying to overdoit at the beginning.

[huntinny]

I guess I disagree with most on this post- and its only my opinion- and is worth just what you paid for it.

I think the short actions are more likely to feel better to younger shooters. They are lighter shorter guns offered in the WSM caliburs than in the standard caliburs. I do agree that the WSMs do not have much on the standard caliburs- the only real difference I see is the shorter lighter gun. 3.5inches shorter and almost a pound lighter can be a big difference. With this same reasoning- why recommend an 30-06 instead of 300wsm based on a shooters age. I think the recoil is very similar if that is the reason. In order to reduce the recoil and but still stay with a short action I think the .243 or 7mm-08 fall into place much better than the .270 or 30-06. I am not saying that the 270 or 30-06 would be poor choices, because they are infact good choices, but not because the shooter is 14. On the other extream- suggesting a 30-30 is also very different . I do not want debate the usefullness of the 30-30 (at least on this thread), but the 30-30 is essentially as lever gun. So in order to go to this calibur the he would again be choosing a very different handling gun. The only reason "that I can think of" to suggest a lever gun over a bolt action is that the followup shot may be quicker, and I also think young shooters should concentrate on a well placed first shot and not on second and third shots at running animals.

[Beowulf]

If it were me I would opt for the WSM in either 270 or 300, but not the 7mm. I recently bought a 270WSM for my godson in a TikkaT3 light ss. The recoil is less than the 300 WSM and little more than a 270 win. There is a lot of misinformation in this thread about the WSM's. First the 270 WSM is a substancial increase over the 270 win. With handloads the best a 270 win. with a 130 grn will do is about 3075 and the best from a 270 WSM will be over 3450 and that even exceeds the 270 WBY by 100 fps. using TSX bullets... Now that is about 590 ft. pounds of evergy at the muzzle, 3490 for the wsm and 2750 for the 270 win. about 20%. At 300 that is 2200 and 1925 Ft. pounds of energy. Thats also almost 3" less drop at 300 yds and almost a foot at 500. And my Oehler shooting lab doesnt lie. I would like to address another issue and thats ammo cost. Comparing apples to apples the difference is small in cost increase between the 270 win and the 270 WSM. Federal fusion is about $26 for the WSM and $23 for the 270 win. with the premiums being $39 and $35. Now putting that into perspective thats about 1 1/2 gallons of gas or 10 miles of driving in the hunting area.
For any shooter I reccomend putting a better pad on any rifle and I prefer the limbsaver over all the rest.
Not having a lot of info on where you will hunt or what you will hunt its hard to reccomend one rifle, however. The 270 WSM is the single most versitle rifle today with 90 grainers for varmits to 150 grain bear claws for big bears and this is done without a ton of recoil. And both of my 270 wsm's are tack drivers. A winchester 70 feather weight and a Tikka T3 stainless being the better of the two. My choice in rifles would be Winchester 70, Tikka t3, Browning Abolt and the 700 Remington in that order. I will also add that most all the WSM nay sayers dont even own a WSM so whats that tell you?

P.S. get some good glass to top it off, Zeiss conquest would be my first choice

[d2huffman]

I like all that justification logic that you use there beowulf. I also concure with the 270wsm and the limbsaver - I have the tikka t3 ssl 270 wsm with a 2-7 leupold and it is a great gun to carry and to shoot. The choices of factory ammo for the 270 wsm and 300 wsm are atleast 3 times that of the 7mm wsm at this time and growing as well as the rifle choices. I read a Weatherby add the other day and they were touting the availablity of the 270 wsm and 300 wsm in their new rifles.

[MOhunter]

i will add i own a model 70 in 7mm wsm I think i'm the only one in my area so ammo is availble but i looked around were i hunt i found 270wsm and 300 wsm but no 7mm wsm.

i will add that for hunting bullets wsm and standards are sometimes within a buck of each other, the difference comes in cheep paper killing ammo, and currently most wsm loadings you find are the priemum stuff.

now if what you have availble to buy is 7mm and 300 i still say 7mm just because i own one. and it will recoil less. and you can allways mail order ammo from someplace.

[dubyam]

Just to clarify, a 270Wby is a bit faster than the 270WSM, especially when using 150-160gr bullets. I have considered the available load data for both, as well as the 270Win, as my brother owns one of those, and while the WSM is about 100-200fps faster than the 270Win, the 'bee is usually about 100-150fps faster than the WSM, as well. I have several sources that provide 3500+fps for the 'bee with 130gr pills. When moving up to the 150gr, I can get 3200fps easily from my 'bee, while I suspect the WSM is not going to make that mark by better than 100fps.

As for the differences between the various WSM's and the standards in matching calibers, unless one is handloading to overpressures there is really not a lot to be gained. In fact, I suspect the difference in drop at 300yds is within the margin of error of nearly every shooter on this board.

Don't misunderstand me, I love the WSM's. I just think there is a lot of hype about them that really doesn't bear out in the real world of the hunting woods and the shooting range. And for the record, the best of the bunch is the 7mmWSM, but it is doomed already and on its way out...