300 WSM vs 300 RSUM

[Guest]

I have noticed that in most of the load data I see for the 300WSM , they have it listed out of a 26" barrel and all the data for the 300RSUM is listed out of a 24" tube

While looking through a free Hodgdon manual I noticed that both of the short mag were tested out of a 24" tube. here is some of the listed data , highest velocities per bullet listed

300 WSM , win brass and primer
150gr bullet
H414 66.0gr 3204fps 63,300 psi
180gr bullet
H414 62.5gr 2959fps 63,000 psi
200gr bullet
H414 61.0gr 2803fps 63,200 psi

300 RSUM , Rem brass and primer
150gr bullet
H414 65.5gr 3201fps 62,800 psi
180gr bullet
H414 60.5gr 2935fps 63,400 psi
200gr bullet
H414 59.5gr 2788fps 64,100 psi

NOTE : out of all the powders listed by
Hodgdon H414 had the highest
Velocities for each case.

It seems to me that the 300RSUM isin't far enough behind the WSM to realy matter. What if you Ackley improved the RSUM , you would get a slight more powder capacity probably more effecient and it would still be a TRUE short action case , maybe some money saved on smithing.
I know , I know ,Remington brass is crap but why coulden't you just resize some 300WSM brass

Just a thought , I'm a big fan of the 300WSM but I have always wondered why the RSUM never made a hit ??

 

[John Burns]

One thing on resizing the WSM brass is possible confusion if some one else ever got ahold of the reloaded ammo.

Maybe Remington will admit defeat and start to chamber the 700 in the WSM cartridges.

My experience with factory loaded RSAUM is all showed what I consider to be hign preassure signs, ejector marks and sticky exraction with the soft Remington Brass. If my handloaded ammo showed the same signs I would back things down a little.

 

[TOM H]

I looked long and hard before I went with the 300wsm over the 300rsum. I'm over 3100fps with a 165 gr bullet and barrel lenght is 24". I don't see Rem making any of the wsm rifles.

 

[QuietHunter]

My opinion.
For those who reload.
Their are two reasons for going with the 300 WSM over the SAUM - Popularity and more loading data (because of the poularity).

Their is one reason to go with the 300 SAUM over the WSM - Remington rifles.

I own a 300 SAUM and have no regrets. I would not advise against either WSM or SAUM.

 

[shilen30]

In addition, you have norma making brass for the 300 WSM, and for a relatively good price to boot.

 

[Pahunter]

Id like to see remington start making the WSM calibers for their rifles. I think they already have a version of the 700 in .270 wsm dont they?

 

[Brent]

John Burns,
My experience with factory loaded RSAUM is all showed what I consider to be hign preassure signs, ejector marks and sticky exraction with the soft Remington Brass. If my handloaded ammo showed the same signs I would back things down a little.

A guy at the range last November had the very same experience as you. The 300 SAUM with the new Factory loaded 150 CoreLoct Ultra. MV average was 3010 fps, ES was 92 FPS for 6 rounds fired. High = 3066 fps, Low = 2974 fps.

1) 3020
2) 3031
3) 2976
4) 3066
5) 2974
6) 2992

Strange, but the load shot about 2" at 300 yards though...

Brass had taken a beating and looked way over pressure, or it was really, really soft.

Someone posted on here, it might have been Doug, that the 300 WSM had 7-8gr more capacity than the 300 SAUM. So I don't see how the SAUM can quite keep up with the WSM. Maybe they freebore it like Weatherby does and this length is about the same as the WSM to where the bullets contact. I think this point has much to do with effective case capacity.

Can anyone compare with the same bullet type their OAL to land contact in both the SAUM and the WSM factory barrels to confirm it?

Remington is cambering a rifle in the WSM's, one type only though.

Norma making brass for the 300 and 270 WSM is a good point.