chronograph readings and eating a litle crow.

[lloydsmale]

Ive got 3 new guns ive been working up loads with and found a good accurate load and took the chrono out to check them. A 300 ultra 26 inch barreled bdl. A 24 inch barreled 300 H&H classic and an abolt 22 inch 300 wsm. Ive allways been one that preached the short mag **** was well, just that **** but the chrono doesnt lie. the 300 h&h and the wsm were loaded with 4350 to the point i got pressure signs and then backed off one grain of powder. I wont list the load as its at least with the h&h well over listed data. Both were loaded with 150 hornady sst tipped bullets. Average for 5 shots put the H&H at 3125 and the wsm at 3185 so i got 60 more fps out of a 2 inch shorter barrel. Got to be something to the short mag ****. the ultra was loaded with 97 grains of re25 and a 168 tssx. Never had any pressure signs but that load shot so good i stopped there. It went 3425 for an average so dont let anyone fool you into thinking its a waste of powder. You arent getting to that level with any of the smaller 300s and id save that 250-300 fps with a 18 grain heavier bullet is a big step up in horse power. Ill add too that theres probably a bit more to be had if I wanted to take the time

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

Yep, the h@h and 300 wsm are basically the same case capacity. so you'll see more difference between barrels than the two cartridges as far as speed. One of the rifle mags even did a write up on the h@h and wsm IN THE SAME BARREL a few years ago; they lopped of roughly an inch and rechambered so the throat was the same. Net result was dang near no difference.
The 300 rum is more cal than the standard mags, but she thumps you more, which is a consideration to some. She'll also tear up a pipe slightly faster and is more expensive to shoot (but still cheaper than proprietary). 3300 fps with a 180 with mid-loads is a heck of a lot more than 3100-3150 fps wound out with a 180 though.