Please critique my build plan for .300WSM

[joelpat]

A few weeks ago I posted a build plan and discussed it with some of you. Thanks for your comments. Then I threw the plan out, put the Model 70 I was building off of up for sale, and started over.

My philosophy for all my guns is to choose a niche and then fill it with the best I can get. I don't plan to ever sell the gun as long as it fills the niche. I'm not interested in throwing money away, but I'm not particularly concerned about price.

This is an elk rifle for use in the Northwest. I usually travel 15-20miles a day on bike and foot while elk hunting, so light and handy is the name of the game. Because of how steep the terrain is, I don't expect to take a shot beyond 600 yards. That would basically be ridge to ridge in most places I hunt.

Below are my choices, and my reasoning.

Action: Surgeon 591SA WSM - Surgeon's reputation doesn't seem to be disputed by anyone. I'm only wondering if another action would reduce my weight. This one is 2lbs, 2.5oz.

Barrel: Pac-Nor, .300WSM, #4 sporter, 22" length, recessed floorboard crown, threaded for brake. - I know many will say the 22" is too short. I've thought about it a lot and I really don't want to go longer. With a 2" brake I'm at 24", and the 26" barrel on my current rig is too long for me. If I pay a small velocity penalty it doesn't look terrible. It's also part of my reasoning for going with the short mag. Theoretically it burns more efficiently than the WinMag, and with a slightly faster burning powder I don't think I'll be disadvantaged too much. If I'm wrong it's a $500 mistake, I can live with that risk. I went with PacNor because they are a NW company and I like to support my neighbors.

Brake: JEC Customs

Trigger: Jewell HVR, w/ safety, w/o bolt release

Bottom Metal: PTG MBE-4 box and Aluminium SA bottom metal - I'm not interested in the extra weight of a detachable mag. The only pro I can see is the ability to carry a tailored long range handload in a separate mag, vs a shorter range load carried in the gun. I chose PTG because they offer it in Aluminum, they are a NW company and they have a good reputation.

Stock: McMillan Game Hunter Edge - I have the Hunter on my M70 Deer Rifle and love it. The Game Hunter looks like it will give me some of that same profile with a vertical grip.

Optics: I have a Zeiss HD5 5-25 on my .300WM. I'll use that unless someone wants to buy it with the M70. Warne rings.

All in, I get a weight of just under 7lbs, and my cost is just under $3K, without optics.

 

[ksubuck]

That will hunt.

I would think you could have one load for everything 0 to 600 and skip the need for a mag box, but mag boxes could be useful.

Personally, I would skip the brake and go with a 24 inch barrel, but not a huge difference either way.

 

[FEENIX]

Looks good to me.

Barrel-wise, IIWY, I'd go with 1:9" or faster and take advantage of the heavy bullets with high BC offerings. While there's nothing wrong with Pac-Nor, other barrel manufacturer's in the NW are Lilja, Proof Research, and McGowen are in MT and Benchmark is in WA, just to name a few. 24" is an excellent barrel length compromise.

"I" picked Timney CE over the Jewell on my last custom built.

Good luck on your project build.

Ed

 

[Barrelnut]

That will hunt.
Personally, I would skip the brake and go with a 24 inch barrel, but not a huge difference either way.

I think the 24" barrel is a good idea also. Just get a good recoil pad. I shoot a 300 WSM that comes in at 9 1/2 lb. loaded with 24" barrel and no brake. The kick is not bad at all. Would never even fill it with an elf standing there. If you are gonna use this as a woods gun. I would definitely drop the brake. Hearing is precious and one mistake around a braked magnum rifle can ruin things.

 

[cape cove]

. Hearing is precious and one mistake around a braked magnum rifle can ruin things.[/QUOTE]
You are so right. Happened to me.

 

[270DT]

I would go with a 24" tube and use the brake for bench work. Get a thread protector and take the brake off for hunting. Just verify your POI brake vs no brake.

 

[elkaholic]

Here is some food for thought. Lone Peak Razor TI action, Brux #3 fluted (may have to go #4 with 300), Manners EH4 stock,Talley aluminum 2 piece mounts, Swarovski 4-12 scope. Comes in at exactly 7 lbs. field ready.........Rich

 

[Frank in the Laurels]

OK, I'll be the spoil sport... Since your building an elk rifle your going to be shooting at a kill zone the size of a beach ball, I just can't see spending $5000.00 to kill one when $500.00 will do the trick with ease... The only rifles I spent that kind of cash on are competition rifles where shot placement counts. Any modern bolt rifle from about any manufacturer will be able to hit that kill zone out to 500 with ease if a little range work beforehand is done. I love custom action tolerances, Jewell triggers, fancy stocks and super scopes as much as anyone but not for big game hunting.

 

[joelpat]

OK, I'll be the spoil sport...

Nah, I appreciate spoil sporting, in moderation.

You are absolutely right. There is no reason I have to have a new truck. My current truck is more than 20 years old, but it has less than 100K miles on it and it runs ok. It doesn't run as smoothly as a new truck, it isn't as comfortable as a new truck...

But I have the money and I want a truck that runs more smoothly and is more comfortable and gets better mileage so I think I will buy a new one.

Wait... were we talking about trucks?

I'm lucky enough to have substantial disposable income, and like I said I choose a niche and build/buy the best gun I can afford in that niche. There is nothing wrong, and in fact a lot right, with using the most economical tool that gets the job done. But when I intend to keep something for decades I build it that way.

 

[joelpat]

Here is some food for thought. Lone Peak Razor TI action, Brux #3 fluted (may have to go #4 with 300), Manners EH4 stock,Talley aluminum 2 piece mounts, Swarovski 4-12 scope. Comes in at exactly 7 lbs. field ready.........Rich
View attachment 71096

I think the action is the only place left where I can save substantial weight. I don't want a carbon barrel for a field gun. I don't need to go to a blind mag. I'm pretty sure the Jewells are aluminum, aren't they?

I Thought about a Deviant Hunter or Ultralight. But the Hunter would only save a couple of ounces. Where is the rest of the weight savings coming from?

My weight numbers are just estimates, so maybe I'm over estimating.

 

[joelpat]

Double post...

 

[joelpat]

Looks good to me.

Barrel-wise, IIWY, I'd go with 1:9" or faster and take advantage of the heavy bullets with high BC offerings. While there's nothing wrong with Pac-Nor, other barrel manufacturer's in the NW are Lilja, Proof Research, and McGowen are in MT and Benchmark is in WA, just to name a few. 24" is an excellent barrel length compromise.

"I" picked Timney CE over the Jewell on my last custom built.

Good luck on your project build.

Ed

Thanks for pointing out twist, I forgot to mention that. I was going to use the standard 1:10 twist. In the past, I've hunted with 180g TTSX bullets, with devastating effect. But my only elk so far has been a bull at 120ish yards, head on through the spine at the base of the neck.

I'm interested in any discussion of twist rate.

 

[FEENIX]

Thanks for pointing out twist, I forgot to mention that. I was going to use the standard 1:10 twist. In the past, I've hunted with 180g TTSX bullets, with devastating effect. But my only elk so far has been a bull at 120ish yards, head on through the spine at the base of the neck.

I'm interested in any discussion of twist rate.

If you stick with 180 and lighter you might be OK. However, you might be missing out on your rifle build's potential. Berger changed their recommended twist rate for 215 from 1:10" to 1:9" to optimized the SG and BC.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...s-bullet-bc-data-and-recommended-twist-rates/

And for that reason, I went with 1:9" on my latest custom build (.30 Lara - basically a .300 Jarrett improved with 27" Lilja 1:9" 3G .830" at the muzzle) since it's going to primarily propel the Berger 215s/230s and Hornady 212s/220s/225s.

Furthermore, bullet manufacturer's like Hammer Bullets are recommending 1:8" twist on their 227s >>> https://hammerbullets.com/product/308-cal-227g-hammer-hunter/

The ultimate decision is yours but like I said, IIWY, I'd go with 1:9" . Good luck on your build.

Cheers!

Ed

 

[Edd]

Action: That is a nice action, I have one. If you are going to Cerakote it, it has the proper clearances built in for that. You can save some weight by using a different action if you are willing to give up some features. If you load your own ammo, one thing you are going to wish for is a magazine longer than 3 inches. If you like the flat facets on the Defiance actions, I don't, their XM action with a 3.2" magazine length might deserve some consideration. I wouldn't give any consideration to a Titanium action because I think it is a poor choice for the application.

Barrel: May be a good barrel but it wouldn't be my choice. If I did use one I wouldn't use a standard contour because I don't like their standard breech diameters. My choice for a barrel would be a Krieger #4.5 stainless or a #4 chromoly. If you can talk them into swamping it for you, it will be 4-5 ounces lighter. I think 22" long is fine. I would also choose a 9" twist.

Brake: I would skip the brake. If I wasn't comfortable without one, I would use a smaller cartridge.

Trigger: Good choice. They are not made of aluminum.

Bottom Metal: I would use a center feed magazine with this cartridge. My current favorite bottom metal is Badger. It is available in aluminum and it is thick enough for some steel inserts under the screws heads.

Stock: That barreled action is going to look lost in that stock. If you want a vertical grip. consider the Game Scout.

Optics: I have no comment about optics.