The .300 WM has the same or less recoil energy than my .338 WM, which is about 30 to 35 foot-pounds, depending on bullet weight and loaded velocity.

But the .300 WM has a characteristic that makes people perceive it as having more recoil: the velocity of the recoil impulse. It feels "sharper" and "more painful" than the same recoil energy delivered at a slower velocity.

So I would ask: Why are you looking at a .300 WM? To take longer shots? At what? If you're hunting anything up to about the size of elk, and all you want is "longer shots," then I would recommend looking at something like the 7mm Remington Magnum, which feels much easier to shoot, but with the proper bullet selection, you can send a 150 to 180 grain bullet downrange which will easily take anything up to the size of elk.

If you're going to hunt moose, grizzly bears, brown bears, bison, etc - then I'd skip right over the .300 WM and look at a .338 WM, or something similarly mid-sized with bullets of at least 250 grains.

The other alternatives if you want to reduce recoil:

- put a mercury recoil reducer in your buttstock

- get a silencer on the muzzle

- last option (which I really don't like to recommend) is to get a muzzle brake

- or simply make the rifle weigh more.

Edit: One last issue which I don't mention enough about recoil: A big part of how well you can handle recoil is how well a long arm fits you. Unless you're about 5'9" to 5'10", most factory-sized rifles (and shotguns) probably don't fit you well.