Re barrel my 300 wm to 300 prc??

[Ckleeves]

I have nothing against the 300 wm, properly throated it hangs pretty darn close to the PRC. But question for the guys who take 300 wm over 300 prc, if you had the choice and were designing it from the ground up would you still put a belt on it? Guys can say all day that it doesn't make a bit of difference but if you had the choice would it have a belt?

 

[2buffalo]

I have nothing against the 300 wm, properly throated it hangs pretty darn close to the PRC. But question for the guys who take 300 wm over 300 prc, if you had the choice and were designing it from the ground up would you still put a belt on it? Guys can say all day that it doesn't make a bit of difference but if you had the choice would it have a belt?

 

[K.E.C. Darkside]

I have nothing against the 300 wm, properly throated it hangs pretty darn close to the PRC. But question for the guys who take 300 wm over 300 prc, if you had the choice and were designing it from the ground up would you still put a belt on it? Guys can say all day that it doesn't make a bit of difference but if you had the choice would it have a belt?

For someone that has not owned either.
Yes the PRC makes sense. Or doesn't have much invested in the WM and you want the New PRC.

 

[bluedog69]

So I have reloaded 7 RM for about 30+ years never had a belt problem?
How do you even know if you have a belt problem?

 

[FireFlyFishing]

I have nothing against the 300 wm, properly throated it hangs pretty darn close to the PRC. But question for the guys who take 300 wm over 300 prc, if you had the choice and were designing it from the ground up would you still put a belt on it? Guys can say all day that it doesn't make a bit of difference but if you had the choice would it have a belt?

Of course not. Silly marketing gimmick when introduced. Hornady did build a slightly better 300 WM with the 300 PRC.

Like I said in my earlier post, I'm invested in the 300 WM and it isn't worth jumping ship to the PRC. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. I can live with the belt and still get what I need out of it. Don't hate the PRC, just don't need one right now. Seems like I'm not alone here.

 

[FEENIX]

I have nothing against the 300 wm, properly throated it hangs pretty darn close to the PRC. But question for the guys who take 300 wm over 300 prc, if you had the choice and were designing it from the ground up would you still put a belt on it? Guys can say all day that it doesn't make a bit of difference but if you had the choice would it have a belt?

No, but I would not do 300 PRC either. I already have a belted magnum that has more capacity than 300 PRC. I have enough .30 Cal chambering to content with - .30 M1, .30-30, 7.62x39 (x2), .308 Win, .30-06 (x2), .30 Gibbs, .300 WSM (x2), .300 WM (x3), and .30 LARA.

 

[snox801]

I agree I found no need to move from my 300 win mag to a PRC just not enough gain. But I wanted a new rifle and decided on a 30 Sherman. That gave me the performance upgrade to make it worth it. If building a brand new rifle why not? 300win and 300prc are so close it's a pick what you like.
In your case nope no way would I spend money for such little gain. I shoot a lot of belted stuff not sure what all these issues people have are but I haven't had any.

 

[308_Branden]

Seconds on this. Not enough differences between the two to swap mid-barrel life.

I should also mention I've had both and reloaded for both. What really did me in was when I started shooting with suppressors. Discovered the heavy 30 cals had a little too much recoil for my suppressed tastes, and recently rebarreled from a 300 PRC to a 7 PRC.

The wm suppressed does slap the shoulder pretty good I'll agree with you on that one!

 

[Gregg C]

The wm suppressed does slap the shoulder pretty good I'll agree with you on that one!

Mine bites me at least once every time I shoot it. No brake, no suppressor. Just shear unadulterated recoil!lol