WSM rounds

[TxAggie94]

What does everyone think of the WSM rounds? I'm looking at a new rifle primarily for Elk hunting. I haven't decided on a caliber yet, and I know there are a lot of good rounds out there. I just want to find out all I can about the WSM cartridges.

Are they effective? reliable? readily available? expensive (relative to other rifle rounds in this class)?

Obviously, I want to end up with a good caliber that does its job well, but I don't want something that will be too expensive to shoot or that I'm going to have a hard time finding in 10 years because no one uses them?

[fritzmeister]

I am dead set on getting me a Savage 12BVSS very soon. They only offer it in short actions though. So, I was talking with a guy at Scheels about this and how "popular" the short magnum rounds were. He said that the most popular of the short magnums were the 300 WSM (locally?). He figured that this round would be around and easier to find in the future more so than the others.

Take it for what it's worth. I think I will be getting my 12BVSS in 300 WSM.

[ichy_trigger]

I do not own one but have seriously considered picking up a 300 WSM. I really just dont have a use for one at this time. My thoughts were hunting in Kansas every other year but not yet.

Everything I have read about them is very positive but it seems that the longer belted magnums can hurl a bit heavier bullets without loss in velocity. The 270 WSM should be a very flat shooting round without all the excessive recoil that the larget calibers would have.

[jmeister]

Unfortunatley I don't have much experience with WSMs other than my current .300WSM. I've only put about 12 rounds through it to get it sighted in and honestly it's more gun than I need. I really only get about 100-150yrds of clear visiblity to shoot and this round is capable of much more.
Looking to sell actually and pick up something a little more "fun"

[jnclement]

I don't think the WSMs will be around that long. They really haven't lived up to their hype, don't always feed well, and the guys I know who chrono'd them weren't getting anywhere near the advertised velocity. I have a friend who loves his 270 though. I think he drank some WSM koolaid. I'm convinced the WSMs and WSSMs killed Winchester. I guess while I'm at it ranting, I should say I don't understand the fascination with short actions either, I'd rather be able to use heavy bullets seated all the way to the lands, in a magazine that will hold them. And the WSM ammo costs more. I'd get a conventional 270. Cheap to shoot, ammo available everywhere, and great on elk with a quality bullet. Don't forget, the elk were hunted almost to extinction with 30-30s and less. Good article - http://www.chuckhawks.com/short_magnums.htm.

I think I already raved about the Savage on your other thread.

[TxAggie94]

Yes, you did. And thanks for the link - good read.

[TxAggie94]

Alright, thanks for the help everyone. I narrowed my choice down to the 7 Rem Mag and the 270 WSM. I'll probably go with the 7 Rem, unless I just find a great deal on the Savage I want in 270 WSM.

I had pretty much decided the 300 Win Mag was more gun than I needed. Since the 300 WSM pretty well matches the win mag, it is too.

I didn't put much research into the 7mm WSM. No one really had anything to say about it either way, so I'm not sure if its popular enough to stick around. The Chuck Hawks website claims it is redundant with the 7 Rem Mag anyway.

I kinda like the 270 WSM round, from what I see. In the end, though, its ballistics are comparable to the 7 Rem Mag (150 grain bullet in each is almost identical). The 7 will push a slightly heavier bullet if you, but otherwise, they're pretty close.

So, I'll probably go with the 7, just based on the fact that its been around longer and had more options right now.

I do hope the 270 WSM sticks around and becomes more popular, though.

Anyway, thanks.

[jnclement]

I know my 300 winmag is unpleasant to shoot. My 7mm mag was too though. I'd go with the 270.