One rifle 257 Wby vs. 300 WM

OK, I'm narrowing it down to one of these calibers for stand and open country hunting ( out to 4 or 500 yards ). I'll have Chad work up loads for whatever I choose. Just bought one of Cameraland's Zeiss Victory HT's 3x12x56 with the 800 rapid Z reticle. Thinking a CDL SF Rem. in .257 Wby or 300 WM and have trigger changed and rifle accurized or maybe Sako 85 Hunter Stainless in 300 Win mag if I can find one with no added work. Can't help it, I love the stainless/Walnut look. Also still considering Alamo Firearms as I know they can do a lot with $2000.00 Thanks again for the help. Funny, when you can't afford it, everything looks good and when you can finally afford it nothing looks like the perfect rifle anymore.

I'll use a short action caliber for rattling or stalking so this is basically a Box blind rifle. Trying to stay around 8 to 9 pounds total. Scope is 19 oz.

.257 and .300 Win Mag aren't even in the same class.

.300 Win Mag is the answer, even though it will make the quarter bore lovers butt hurt. .257 will never be able to do what the .300 Win Mag can do.

OK, just found a stainless/Walnut Sako in 300 WSM. Are there any challenges in handloading this round and getting great groups compared to the 300 WM?

Trying to get something my grandson can wind up with one day and just feel that Sakos are something that can be handed down for years to come. BUT, I plan on shooting that sucker til the day I can't shoot anymore !!

If you reload the 257 Bee will do everything out to 400-500 yds. with less recoil. The Weatherby ammo ain't cheep and not everyplace carries it. If you don't reload the 300 WM will do the same. Ammo is less expensive and can be found virtually anywhere.

Chad has talked like the 300 WSM is more picky to make shoot, and won't make the velocity of the WM. But you'd have to ask him specifics.

The Sako is a damn fine rifle though. He can probably make it shoot, since you had planned on hiring him anyway.

Makes no sense, Sako website shows an 85 Hunter Stainless listed in 300 WM but I can't find one. Sent emails to two Sako dealers to see if they can order one. Won't find out much 'til next week probably. Merry Christmas and thanks for the advice guys.

For anything in Texas I would prefer the .257 Weatherby, there is no right or wrong answer.

I'm with booradley. Get the 257 if you are a Texas stand Hunter. That's what Roy Weatherby preferred for personal use. Must be a reason.

Pretty sure the 257 will do everything you ask of it. I had a 300WM and it was a great gun, and in the 8-9lb range, it thumped hard. The 257 is no slouch either. The Rem 700 CDL 257wby that you mentioned is on my short list of guns to buy, very sexy. Ammo is expensive and hard to find for the 257 though, which sucks.

Easy part is finding ammo, hard part is paying for it.

But then again no premium ammo is cheap now days.

Sold my 300 because I always shot my 257wby.

There is an in between........ 26 nosler or 6.5-300wby or 6.5 WbY.

I do love my 257 wby. The right hand of God has never let me down

Mere mortals will never understand the power of the 257

Is this just for whitetails in Texas?

I shot a buck at 210 yards with my 300WM pushing the 208 AMAX around 2938 fps. Ruined a lot of meat. I'm in love with my win mag but it is definitely overkill for Texas whitetails.

That's a good one!

Load it down to .308 Win ballistics....

I think Chad will tell you the 300WSM can be made to shoot just the loads may be on the hot side like max loads. I like the 257 Wby and with reloads it can shoot and kill anything in Texas. Lots of other rounds will also do that

I can't help that you're a mere mortal

Can't go wrong with either honestly. If you ever think you'll do a elk hunt or anything bigger than texas whitetail I'd go .300wm. If you won't then I'd probably go 257 weatherby.

If I am not mistaken alamo has a sharp 257 on the the shelf and ready to go. At least they did last time I was in there. I believe it was their maverick build

Yes, mainly Whitetails in Texas and hogs. Y'all are supposed to all agree on one caliber to make my choice easier lol. Oh well looks like I can't go wrong either way I go. Keep your opinions coming, I do listen and I do appreciate it. Thanks.

THAT part is very true. The rest......

Lol. Merry Christmas JG!!!

I mainly shoot pigs, steel and elk with this rifle. Its not my primary deer rifle, I just had it with me at the time. I don't load anything lighter than the 208 amax for it, because I never shoot deer with it. And had it not been a buck, I would have taken a head shot especially at only 210 yds. To me the win mag is best with 180 gr and up which is overkill for body shots on small bodied Texas whitetail, IMO.

Yup

Merry Christmas to you!

I took it as you were complaining about too much gun for whitetail, and made a suggestion. I completely understand about using what you have with you. It is too much gun for whitetail, but it can be throttled back. The .257 cannot be throttled up.

Yea but for whitetails the .257 does not need to be throttled up. It's already perfect

Go with the 25-06, 270 or 30-06 and forget the magnums. You will be glad you did when it comes time to pay for ammo or components and the game of Texas doesn't need any more killin' than you will get from these.

We call it "Thors Hammer"

If you plan on chasing elk with it, I'd go the 300 route. I like 30cal pills for larger game for an improved chance at a blood trail. Not saying the 257 won't kill one, just saying I like larger calibers for bigger game.

No it does not need to be throttled up for whitetail, but calling it perfect is a reach. I've got several rifles to choose from, for whitetail. Two I wouldn't use .223 and .22-250, two are in a close tie 6.5 Creedmoor and 7mm-08, one is overkill 7 Rem Mag. But he metioned 500 yards. If my hunting pard tells me to expect 400 yard shots on does next month (like he suggested would happen) I'm taking the overkill rifle, 7 Rem Mag.

Comparing these two is two chamberings that are pretty far apart on the spectrum. For 300 and in whitetail, I'd rather use a short action in 6.5 mm, 7mm, or even .308 Win. But that's not the two he brought up.

I much prefer short actions for carry and follow shots (pack of hogs, coyotes etc I have short stroked a long action). I will follow with this. I used to carry a bolt 223 all the time, and supplement it with a 25-06 or a 270 during deer season (2 rifles). If I was going after long shots I would add a big bore (300 ultra or 338 Lapua) 3 guns at this point. I now carry a 6.5 creed only and about 40 rds of ammo. I don't shoot as many down range as I would with the 223 but I am sure not afraid to shoot it. I will stop and put 10 or so into rocks at distance and not give it a second thought like I would with a hot long action or magnum load. It's made me a better shooter and I am planning another creed goto style semi custom to wring out a little more accuracy. I'm about half way through my stash of factory ammo, looking forward to loading for the creed (it is almost as cheap to shoot factory hornady ammo as it is to reload just a few cents difference and the factory ammo shoots really well).

Get the one that turns you on the most and shoot the crap out of it.
You know you're favoring one over the other and they'll both do the job.

Those are two outstanding calibers! I think you should just buy both of them! That way you ca n satisfy both camps! Lol

For Texas hunting I'd go with the .257 but if there's a legit chance you will need an Elk rifle then I might go with a 300...but then again I'd probably go with the 257...and if I was going to go Elk hunting in the future it'd be the perfect reason to buy the 300...then I'd own both!

I have done this with several magnum cartridges and found that it generally works well.

Starting loads from the manual usually do just fine... Starting loads for a .300 WSM for the bullet weight of choice will generally give same performance as top 30-06 loads.

You can also drop that 300 to 30-30 levels if you want with some powders like 5744 oy perhaps h4895

In my opinion running big heavy bullets that slow is throttling it back.

You're entitled to your opinon.

I like the factory's opinion on that bullet also.

That's fine. There are plenty of us that have done lots of killing with them.

But the hot rod is a 7 Rem Mag loaded with (as you say throttled back) 180 gr bullet. But that bullet is a Berger VLD Hunting.

Oh, and the MV of that 180 gr is a pitifully slow 3040 fps that delivers a whimpy 2000 ft/lbs at 600 yards.

the name explains that

Some of you guys are just overly besotted with big old high BC bullets. For Texas, that 257 Wby (or even better, the 6.5 Wby) is close to perfect. With a 115 gr Partition, it shoots about as flat as my laser 220 Swift. What in the world would anybody need with a 300 Wby for TX hunting? As for me, I'm perfectly happy with the 260 and the 270, but if I wanted to sendero hunt out to 400 or 500 yards, I really can't think of a better round than that 257 Wby, though my fanatical sendero hunting neighbor of many years was a very vocal 270 Wby fan.

And, colt45, sure Roy Weatherby shot a Wby cartridge, but his favorite Wby round was the 257. Reasonable recoil, extreme range capability for hunting, great down range penetration and performance. I'm just guessing that he preferred it because of: reasonable recoil, etc, etc. I think his preferred bullet was the 115 gr Partition.

I love those wood and stainless Sakos but $2k is allot of money for a factory rifle. I like the custom and 300 Win mag choice. I am a fan of the 257 Weatherby but I think the 300 shines for your criteria.

Hell I'm fixing to load up some 130's for my 300 Roy. A 130 grain TSX hitting 3700 or faster makes a damn fine deer round. Hell the slowest rifle I shoot is my 300 and its shooting 3550 with 150's.

30-30 level loads in my 270WSM using AA5744 and 130 grain spitzers were quite accurate, and allowed recreational shooting without any detectable wear on the barrel.

Probably be a good coyote or pig load, but I just used those loads for target shooting and occasional plinking. I found the loads listed in the Speer book.

My question is if you wanna shoot 4-500 yards why did you get a 4x12 scope?

I would want a higher magnification than that.



My long range rife is a .257 wby with a 4x16 on it

500 yards is plenty do-able with 12X

Never felt like I needed anything over 12x for anything under 600 yards myself.

I routinely shoot 500 yards on 5x with my S&B 5-25x56 because its just that easy and I enjoy watching vapor trails when I can see them. 12x magnification with quality glass is more than enough.

Higher magnification translates into a narrower field of view. No big issue for target shooting, but hardly optimal for hunting big game, where something may pop out of the brush much closer than you expect.

Some are willing to put up with the reduced field of view for the extra magnification. This does not mean that it is going to be a good idea for everybody.

Jack O'Connor found that he could get by just fine with 4x for his hunting rifles, and he harvested a pretty fair amount of game during his career.

Personally, I've gotten to where I prefer a 2-7x variable scope that can be mounted low and does not have a good deal of weight or sail area. In the field, I leave it set at 4x with an option for lower or higher magnification if the situation calls for it.

Here's a 2-7x on my old 1885:

And folks in the 1700s put plenty of game on the table with a musket. And the native Americans did it with spears and bows made of whittled limbs and gut strings.

Oh, but I do agree 12x is enough for that range. Just saying sometimes advancements in technology are beneficial.

A variable up to 12x is fine for any hunting 99% will ever do (under 500 yards). A 50mm bell is useless clunky weight for 99% of hunting. And worrying about BC is needless for 99% of hunting - and more harmful than helpful for the 1% if it results in using a fragile bullet.

POI is just the first step in the ballistics equation when the goal is putting animals down cleanly.

I can't compare the two calibers well as they are two different animals. For one rifle period - .300 WM. For one rifle for Texas only - .257 would be a fine choice.

Yea and Elmer Keith loved big slow bullets. I wonder what they'd shoot and what kind of equipment they'd be using now? I suspect their attitudes would have changed considerably by now.

Any optics opinion from O'Connor is historical information, not practical information.

I agree.

Mark it on the calender

I suspect that their opinions would not change nearly as much as one might imagine. Both explained why they felt as they did quite well, and on many occasions. Note that O'Connor knew about and used variable scopes, 3-9's in those days, but found that a good 4X scope had better, brighter, and clearer optics than the variables. (and they still do)

There were small and medium bore magnums around in Kieth's day... He was not impressed.

Is there supposed to be a point in there, somewhere?

I hear the ammo cost excuse and it makes me chuckle. Now if you shot that Wby caliber as much as Fireman of Chad shoots then it's understandable but the guy that hunts might shoot 1 box a year maybe 2 if he practices a little.
Cost of gun -$1000
Cost of lease- $2500
Cost of corn, feeders, stands-$1000
Cost of food, lodging, fuel-$500
Cost of 2 boxes of most expensive .257 WBY- $190
Probably less than the cost of Ribeyes on opening weekend.
Ammo is always the lowest cost of any hunt but one of the most complained about.
Buy a .257 WBY and have fun. It is a wonderful caliber for everything smaller than an elk and I have shot an elk at 300 yards with one too.
300 win is a great caliber too but will thump the carp out of you.

I promise you after 50 years of technology advancement their opinions would change

Yea, and the cheapest 3-9x40 on the market day is clearer and brighter than the best fixed powers of their day.

I'm assuming you must only use a 4x fixed powered scope on all of your rifles. After all, they are the best option.

Not the most clever assumption in a topic where I have posted a photo of one of my rifles with a 2-7 variable.

There are some here who will only talk about something if they are a fan-boy... - Some of the brighter and more observant readers here have figured out that with me, this is not the case.

There is no comparison between the quality and brightness of today's scopes and those in O'Connor's day. Variables had many issues then that no longer exist today and the light transmission of even any mid-priced scope would astound O'Connor were he alive today.

Keith basically lost the "big bore for everything" debate even in his day. He would be an even bigger loser today with the variety of quality bullets now available.

And I am an avowed "use enough gun" guy.

I would buy the one that made me feel tingly in my no-no place.

For me, that would be the Weatherby, because it's a Weatherby.

I don't have the knowledge or the experience to vouch for either of them. The .300 Winmag makes sense to me, but the Weatherby is more sexier.

If I could have only two for all of North America I'm pretty sure those would be my two.

Well gentlemen, thanks for all the advice and the help. I bought a SS Tikka 7mm-08 off the forum and have ordered a black with gray Medalist stock.
I've decided ( for now ) on a semi custom build 300 WM through Alamo Precision Arms. No doubt there are great builders on the forum but I really need the second rifle to stay around or under 2K. I also have a LNIB Winchester Featherweight Stainless in .243 coming soon that I have to decide what to do with. Probably sell it lol. Thanks again y'all gave me a lot to think about so now that my brain is full I think I'll eat a bowl of Bluebell and get ready for a busy week.

And that's just wrong, funny as heck but soooooo wrong lol.

I appreciate the back-up JG, but it is not really necessary. The facts speak for themselves.

That wasn't backup, that was an example of you contradicting yourself.

Actually, an example of your need to brush up on your reading skills.

Duh.

Fanboy types tend to think that everyone else is a fanboy too. I can understand where you are coming from, there.

So let me get it straight. It is your believe that a fixed 4x scope still today, provides the brightest, and clearest sight picture. And is all that is needed for a hunting rifle. (Those were your own words, so no need to question my comprehension)

Yet you use a 2-7 variable power scope.

This is the same exact thing as the issue with the .308. Making a huge deal about the loss of velocity then asking opinions on a short barreled .308

So the issue here is you Charles. You want to chastize everybody for being a fanboy, and being unwilling to listen to other opinions or "facts" as you prefer to refer to your opinions as, yet you are unwilling to do the same. You seem to be a crass old man, who is stuck in your ways, with a massive case of "get off my lawn syndrome".

You have yet to contribute to any of these threads, and have done nothing but derail them constantly. You are totally unwilling to admit it, but you are the very essence of a TROLL.

You don't have to agree with everything everybody says, certainly not. But you seem unwilling to even entertain the thought. If it didn't come from the mind and mouth of charlesb it can't possibly be correct. I'd say " have a nice day" but I get the impression most of yours are spent in myisery.

Yes, precisely. The variable-power scopes have many more internal lenses than a single-power scope, and the variable power feature also introduces effects such as a reduced field of view, reduced transmission of light, and edge distortion. This is not an opinion, it is plain fact.



That's right. I am knowledgeable about the pros and cons of different scope designs, and have found that for most of my hunting, a 2-7 variable works out best for me. This is my personal preference but unlike some here, I do not have to live in ignorance, or ignore simple reality in order to decide what I prefer to use. In other words, I am not a fanboy and recognize the pros and cons of the decisions that I make.



No huge deal was made on my part. - I simply pointed out the fact that performance suffers when you use a shorter barrel. Those who can read past the grade-school level will find that I said that 18" barrels are a common short barrel, but that when you reduce further than that (16" for example) then you are stepping into a point of diminishing returns where the reduction of velocity and increased muzzle blast starts to outweigh the benefit of a firearm that is easier to handle. In saying so, I passed on knowledge that has been commonly understood in the shooting sports for decades.

It's hard to imagine what kind of intelligence would actually believe that hearing a well-known fact expressed will somehow prevent you from making your own decision as to what you want to do.

The reaction by various fanboys who had their brains disconnected and apparently were raised by animals were the source of any 'big deal'. Most sane, intelligent adults do not suddenly degenerate into rude morons when faced with an opinion that they do not understand or agree with. - I certainly do not.

Many of the rude fanboy types attacking me did not really have an argument with what I had said - but were on the lookout for chances to act rudely because they did not like it that I had pointed out that "long-range animal shooting" (I won't dignify it by calling it hunting) was the direct opposite of good sportsmanship. - Another fact that has been widely recognized by the shooting and hunting community for decades.

You get to have your own opinions, but you do not get to have your own facts.



Nope. - I expressed my opinion, and am not responsible for the antics of uncivilized people who do not know how to behave in a forum.

You might want to live in a fascist society where only one opinion (yours) can be expressed without character attacks but guess what? - This is the United States, Tff caribou.

Love it or leave it.



Yadda yadda yadda.

Can't read or spell either, apparently. There is a built-in spell-checker here that is really easy to use, you know.

Each individual reader here must judge whether other people's posts have been informative or not. - You do not get to make that call for everyone else.

Well, you've thrown your little hissy fit, and hopefully now you will now untwist your little girl panties and take a stab at behaving like a civilized adult.

Good luck with that.

Tff caribou head the nail on the head.

And if fixed power scopes are so much better why do so many high level shooters use variables? Technology and glass quality has drastically improved in the last ten years.

Another thread derailment brought to us by Charles.

Ok ChuckieB here is why you are wrong. And my facts are facts. I work for Leica and have also worked for Swarovski and Bushnell I the past 20 years. I have been through both the Leica and Swarovski plants on several occasions and have been giving factual clinics on optics since 1996.
Today's scopes from about 200.00 up are far superior to the old classics you speak of. Fixed or variable power.
Light transmission has very little to do with the glass in optics. Light transmission is determined by the amount of light allowed through the lens and not rejected. The coating on lenses determines this factor. The better the coating the better the light transmissions. The scopes you speak of have only a single coating on one side and have the worst light transmission capability. In the 1970s Luepold started using a process called multi coating on the outside lens only. Multi coating was far superior to simple coating and allowed approximately 15% more light transmission. Thus multi coated scopes allowed at max 85% light transmission. Many companies of course followed this process. In the mid 80s Bushnell/Bausch and Lomb invented fully multi coated lenses. A very expensive process where all lenses were coated with multiple coats of anti reflective and on both sides. This was the best there was. The Bausch and Lomb Elite scopes got everyone else on the stick. All of the premium optics companies followed. Fully multi coat was allowing up to 95% light transmission. Since then chemical coatings have been improved to the point that a scope isn't even considered good if it doesn't allow at least 98%. Perfection 100% can never be fully achieved due to glass resistance but 99% is the standard in high end optics.
Glass is very important to quality glass but with today's processes even cheap glass is better than old scopes glass. Up until the 80s plain silica glass was used in 99% of hunting optics. That is the same quality as window panes. The companies like Bausch and Lomb and Ziess who made eyewear and high end research microscopes started using optical quality glass. Since then improvements are vast in glass. But glass is built on manufacturers specs. No matter how clear the glass is it reflects light so the coatings are as or more important than the actual glass.
As far as edge clarity. Until Swarovski started grinding their lenses from edge to edge in the early 90s no company ground to the edge of their lenses and therefore your edge clarity claim is out the door. Grinding machines and process did not allow for the percision to grind to the edge with out and over abundance of damage and waste. Lenses were erected using an aluminum ring that locked around the edge of the lens and therefor you simply saw black at the edge. Today all high end scopes are ground to the edge and are erected using an epoxy and prong method. Basically look at how a diamond is mounted. Using this method you get a wider less distorted field of view.
The one point you are semi correct on is fixed power. A non variable scope with all things being equal in manufacturing will allow you a little more light transmission on the exact power it is. For example a 10x fixed will allow a very little more than a 6-24x if the the variable is set at 11 of above. But on the other hand the variable will allow more light if it is on 6x.
The one factor that will never change is the trade off between magnification and light transmission. The higher the magnification the less light transmission you have.
I won't get into the comment on variables and point of impact. Today's second focal plane scopes are so precisely made that it is minute and you can get a first focal plane reticle and totally eliminate it.
Sorry to everyone for this being so long but I get tired of hearing this guy spout about stuff he has no idea about. It scares me that someone might believe him.

BOOM!

Put that in ur pipe and smoke it!

Awesome post. If you don't mind I'm going to plagiarize the crap out of it.

No problem. It is all stuff that can be researched.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Can't read or spell either, apparently. There is a built-in spell-checker here that is really easy to use, you know.

Each individual reader here must judge whether other people's posts have been informative or not. - You do not get to make that call for everyone else.

Well, you've thrown your little hissy fit, and hopefully now you will now untwist your little girl panties and take a stab at behaving like a civilized adult.

Good luck with that.

[/quote]

Your grammar is bad

It should read; and hopefully now you will untwist

I'm with tffCaribou. You are constantly rude and needlessly insulting and of no measurable benefit to this forum. Go back to the 24HourCampfire, where your style and manners are more common (yes, a play on words).

I thought this post was related to "One rifle 257 Wby vs. 300 WM", boy that sure went to S#%% in a hurry!

He got tons of information and great answers in the first 2 pages.