|
Well, JMHO but of I already had a .300 Win. mag. I probably would not bother getting a .300WSM. However, I have done some work with two rifles in .300 WSM and frankly, I like it.
The first was a standard Winchester M70 Classic (pre-64 style) that a new kid to shooting was wanting to sight in. Now that rifle has a bit of weight to it and although it was his first centerfire high power rifle, he shot darn good groups with the gun from the bench. He then let me shoot a few rounds (5) and the group was solid one inch. FWIW, his groupss were in the 1.25 to
1.50" range. Not too shabby for a newbie.
My second run with a .300 WSM was my ex-son-in-law's M70 classic Featherweight, a much lighter rifle than the Classic standard model. he was not a reloader when he bought it so he left the rifle with me to work up loads for him. I gues by the time I was through, I'd put maybe 200 to 250 rounds through the gun from the bench and frankly, the recoil was not all that bad. We had the gun glass bedded and a decent trigger job done on the gun and groups (5 shot) run in the 1.0" to 1.25" range.
If I were in the fame of mind to buy another .300 mag. of any kind. I'd look real close at one of those Featherweights for several reasons. One, at 8,000 feet MSL, rifle weight seem to climb exponentially, especially if you're on the wrong side of 60 years old. (I'm nearly 72) Second, it's a hell of a lot lighter than my 26" McMillan stocked Winchester M70 in .300 Win. Mag. and even lighter than my three Ruger #1 rifles in .300 Win. Mag. So would I buy one? Maybe, if the price was right. I own one early Kimber rifle, a medium weight barrelled .223 and if someone offered me a Kimber in .300 WSM that was as described, I'd be all over it like stink from a skunk although I'd much rather have the featherweight.
Paul B.
|