I looked on WCs page about the 300 HAMR, they don't use the same bullets in their comparison. In fact, I think it is on purpose, how easy would it be to load the same Sierra bullet in 300BO and their HAMR for apples to apples comparison. They had to go out of their way not to use the same bullets. Plus nothing is free, something has to give to get 400fps extra velocity over a 300BO.
I wasn't a fan of all the patent BS that Alexander Arms had on the 6.5 Grendel, so I ended up going with the 300BO at that time. When Wilson Combat came out with the 300HAM'R, it just seemed like another name grab/relabel job of the existing 300BO. My opinion/bias was reinforced by what seems like some "Apples-Oranges" comparisons of performance results that I am sure I harped on in a post or two.
After wading through all 72 pages of the 300 HAM'R thread on Texas Hunting Forum over Labor Day weekend, I have come to realize that the very points of comparison that I "cried wolf" actually had a legitimate basis and weren't just some marketing pageantry.
1)
Different length barrel used for reported velocities wasn't a marketing strategy, but rather results from the designated barrel length specified under SAAMI approval for each caliber. It so happens that the SAAMI barrel lengths are different with 300BO (16"), 300 HAM'R (18"), and 6.5 Grendel (24").
2)
Different bullets used when comparing 300HAM'R and 300BO are result of the two cartridges' having different case lengths requiring different bullet profiles/shapes in order to fit within the 2.26" magazine length restriction.
> 300BO's case is short in order to fit the extremely long 190gr-230gr subsonic bullets in the 2.26" mag length restriction. As result the supersonic bullets (95gr-125gr) for 300BO have to be very long to meet the mag length so they tend to be long conical/pointy shaped.
> 300HAM'R case length is 1/4" longer than the 300BO. This means that the popular supersonic bullets for 300BO are too long. The 300HAM'R uses shorter, squattier bullets to fit within the 2.26" mag length restriction. When you read the thread you'll see posts of guys pulling/grinding-off the polymer tips from popular 300BO bullets in an attempt to use in 300HAM'R while fitting within the mag length limitation.
> Comparisons are of factory ammunition available to market (not handloads) so not necessarily going to have same bullets offered in factory ammunition at time of comparison.
3)
300HAM'R velocity claims are legitimate as reported by numerous unaffiliated hunters taking into account different barrel lengths.
I think the most comparable bullet is the 125gr TNT. Wilson Combat is currently producing the 125gr TNT ammunition (2,525fps from 18" barrel) whereas Hodgon lists 300BO load at 2,200fps (max). My 300BO (16" AR15) is 2,100fps and my CZ527 (18") at 2,200fps with same load, which is below the max load so maybe pick up another 100fps if increase the charge.
Here is the load data
https://www.wilsoncombat.com/300-hamr/
I have no affiliation with Wilson Combat and am not a fanboy. Writing this has required me to eat crow on my previous negative opinions. In my CZ527 bolt rifle, where I can load stout charges (exceeding AR15 pressures) and also ability to load bullets very long without the 2.26" mag length restriction (additional powder capacity), I can can almost duplicate the 300HAM'R. However, I can not do this in a AR15, whereas the 300 HAM'R does... How much more can you squeeze out of 300HAM'R in a bolt rifle. After reading the thread I came to the conclusion that it was worth the time to buy a barrel and swap/convert an existing AR15 to try it out.