270 wsm


PDA






precisionrifle14
January 30, 2012, 10:30 PM
What significant advantages does the 270 wsm offer over more traditional cartridges? (30-06;308;243;270)

If you enjoyed reading about "270 wsm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HOOfan_1
January 30, 2012, 11:11 PM
Faster and heavier bullet than the .243
Faster bullet than the .270 Win and in a shorter stiffer action
Much faster bullet than the .308 Win
Faster bullet than the .30-06 and in a shorter stiffer action.

It is all about flat shooting. Gets there faster, wind doesn't have as long to blow it. .243 is about the lower limit for deer past 200 yards. Most hunters wouldn't think of using the .243 on anything larger than deer though. .270 WSM is a safe bet on pretty much all North American Game.

precisionrifle14
January 30, 2012, 11:19 PM
Thanks, I was just wondering. What are the ballistics like from say a 26in. barrel? what is the drop like from 100-500 yards?

HOOfan_1
January 30, 2012, 11:32 PM
Take a 140 gr. bullet with a ballistic coefficient of .457, going 3000 fps.

If you sight it in for 100 yards it is going to hit ~51 inches low at 500 yards
Same bullet in a .270 Win going 2800fps is going to hit ~60 inches low at 500 yards

Gtscotty
January 31, 2012, 12:03 AM
3200 fps should be easily achievable with a 140 gr bullet in the 270 WSM, especially out of a 26in barrel.

Ridgerunner665
January 31, 2012, 12:21 AM
Real world advantage....none.

Other than the slight advantage in trajectory, the 270 WSM offers no advantage whatsoever.

The days of new rounds offering anything truly new are long gone, have been for at least 50 years, at least as far as hunting rifle rounds go. (one exception might be the 204 Ruger)

There have been some worthwhile developments in pistols that are more recent (40 S&W, 357 Sig, 10mm, etc.)

pingpingping
January 31, 2012, 12:27 AM
Carrying a magnum powered rifle that weighs a pound less is a real world advantage.

Ridgerunner665
January 31, 2012, 12:49 AM
A pound less...

More like 1/4 of a pound less than a 270 Win in the same make of rifle.

Gordon
January 31, 2012, 01:07 AM
The reason I got into the .270 WSM was I found a nice Winchester Classic Stainless made in Conn. for a good price and I had shot a .270 Winchester out of a 1953 one for 40 years prior with good success. On expensive "big " hunts I only take factory ammo and it seems some of the best combos of super premium bullets are available in .270 WSM ! That and the superior accuracy of the new combo sold it to me and the fantastic performance is just a plus. It has much less recoil than a 7mm Rem Mag IMHO BTW.

helotaxi
January 31, 2012, 04:29 AM
More like 1/4 of a pound less than a 270 Win in the same make of rifle.Regardless of the weight differential, there is the 200FPS velocity advantage that not only reduces wind drift but extends the range at which the round delivers a given amount of energy compared to the .270 Win. It is actually an improvement and has caught on fairly well as a result.

In addition to the weight and stiffness (though I've yet to see a tangible benefit on that with a hunting rifle) advantage, there is also the matter of mounting a scope. Many more options and much less of a pain to put a scope on a short action.

H2oPumper
January 31, 2012, 09:30 AM
If you have the long range to practice at so you can learn your gun's ability, the WSM should gain you an extra 100 yards of effective range over the 270 Win. I have a 270 Win and could probably out shoot a buddy with a 270 WSM due only to the fact that he doesn't practice much. I haven't had to shoot a deer at greater than 200 yards, and most could have been taken with a slug, primarily due to terrain. I also hunt in some heavily wooded areas and the longer barrel of the WSM would be a detriment, in fact, I often though how nice it would have been in those areas to have a 308 with an 18" barrel. The WSM does have it's place where it can be more effective, but you have to know that you can be effective with it.

Arkansas Paul
January 31, 2012, 10:35 AM
Real world advantage....none.


I agree with you..........for most people.
There is definately a long range advantage with 200 extra fps, however the vast majority of hunters and shooters aren't at the skill level to realize it. I am included in this group. I'm comfortable out to about 300 yds, assuming I have a solid rest. A .30-06 or .270, and cartridges like them are fine at that distance, so for me, there would be no real world difference.

Kachok
January 31, 2012, 04:05 PM
Having years of experence with 270 win and WSM let me break it down for you. The WSM does have a substantial longrange advantage, it is very impressive with a .460BC bullet at 3400+fps, no 257 Wby can shoot flatter with hunting weight bullets, so needless to say the old 270 win does not keep up. That said, I only used my WSM when hunting large wide open fields, because within normal ranges it has no real advantage over the 270 win. Last I checked good 270 win brass costs $.48 a brass while WSM costs me $.70 a brass, and the WSM usualy runs about 7gr more powder. As a handloader I slightly perfer the WSM, if I did not handload I would take an old 270 win, 30-06 or 308 over any WSM anyday because of the $35 (or more) a box WSM price

pbrktrt
January 31, 2012, 09:04 PM
And my old .270 Win chronos 3190 fps with 130 gr Superformance. It's not that far behind.

targets from us
January 31, 2012, 09:21 PM
I like mine,compact,light accurate,fast,low recoil. Rem mod 700 sps in stainless with a muzzle brake installed.

If you do not reload you will probably want a more traditional caliber as ammo is pricey.

I purchased the .270 WSM because it was faster then the .270 and cost was about the same. Standard American thinking bigger is better lol.

TheCol.U.S.M.C.
January 31, 2012, 09:37 PM
What do you plan on doing with the rifle? the reason I ask is if you plan on target shooting I would go with something else. I have a Weathby Vanguard in .270WSM I got for hunting long range (AZ) and it works great for that, I would feel safe taking 500yrd shots with mine. Now for the ugle ammo is pricy $35-40 for factory loads, and all the speed comes at a cost. Mine will heat up fast like 3 shots fast and I'm not doing and rapid bolt stuff. After 3 shots I need to wait 15-20min for the barrel to cool off or my sub-moa group opens up fast. It took me a good year of shooting it to learn how mine shoots but now I love it, and no deer, elk, or other critter is safe in Arizona unless it past 500 i guess

HARV6
January 31, 2012, 10:35 PM
I almost bought one, but for me personally the disadvantages greatly outwayed the advantages. For the rare someone experienced enough to consistently make shots at +300 its great. For the rest of us... Typically shooting say inside of 200 you won't see the advantage of the WSM but you will always pay more in dollars, recoil, and muzzle blast. Kinda like buying a Ford F350 as a daily driver when you don't have anything to tow. You also have to worry about having too high of an impact velocity with certain bullets. When I was bear hunting last year I set up for a 100-200yrd shot. I was very suprised when I had one go barreling past me from behind after being spooked from something else. Never heard it till it was inside of 50! I would not have wanted to worry about a bullet holding together on Yogi at 20yrd and 3400fps.

Kachok
February 1, 2012, 12:34 AM
^^^ True, unless someone hunts at 300+ they will probably never notice the difference between the two. As far as the bullet construction thing goes that is not really an issue. 130gr BTs hold together long enough to blow through any deer and 140gr Accubonds / 150-160gr Partitions WILL NOT come appart at any impact speed shy of a magnetic rail gun. The recoil and muzzle blast on the WSM is not that bad, much less then a 7mm Rem Mag, but a little more then a 270 win for sure.

allaroundhunter
February 1, 2012, 12:41 AM
Out of my Savage .270 WSM I have taken 3 hogs past 350 yards (furthest being 387 through a rangefinder). The recoil and muzzle blast are considerably more than my grandfather's .270, but you get use to it.

If this is a range gun....skip the WSM. Ammunition is too expensive. When I take mine to the range I typically only fire about 10-15 rounds through it to check zero at different ranges.

T.R.
February 1, 2012, 06:55 AM
In theory, a hunter is better armed with the 270 WSM because it holds its velocity and energy figures way out beyond 300 yards. But in all my years of hunting, I've only shot one animal beyond 300 yards and that antelope was toppled with .308 rifle. Vast majority of my hunting shots have been less than 200 yards.

TR

Peakbagger46
February 2, 2012, 01:15 PM
To that post, TR, I understand what you are saying. Some of us though live and hunt in the open desert and are willing to go out and practice at longer ranges.

So far, I love my A-bolt in .270 WSM. not much of a kick and seems easy enough to handload for. I will put in a lot more practice with it before I'm ready for a 500 yard shot though.

MachIVshooter
February 3, 2012, 10:20 PM
The days of new rounds offering anything truly new are long gone, have been for at least 50 years, at least as far as hunting rifle rounds go. (one exception might be the 204 Ruger)

For the most part I agree. But there are some. The RUM's come to mind.

As for the WSM's? Just a way for Winchester to make a buck. The .270 WSM may outclass the .270 win by a small margin, but there are many 7mm cartridges that offer superior performance to both.

I'm probably urinating in a lot of people's wheaties with this comment, but .277" was, is and always will be a dumb idea. The only reason the .270 Win is so popular is Jack O'conner. The reality is that anything it can do, the .280 Rem. can do better. Likewise, anything the .270 WSM can do, the 7mm WSM or 7mm RSAUM can do better.

Kachok
February 3, 2012, 10:47 PM
For the most part I agree. But there are some. The RUM's come to mind.

As for the WSM's? Just a way for Winchester to make a buck. The .270 WSM may outclass the .270 win by a small margin, but there are many 7mm cartridges that offer superior performance to both.

I'm probably urinating in a lot of people's wheaties with this comment, but .277" was, is and always will be a dumb idea. The only reason the .270 Win is so popular is Jack O'conner. The reality is that anything it can do, the .280 Rem. can do better. Likewise, anything the .270 WSM can do, the 7mm WSM or 7mm RSAUM can do better.
I beg to differ. The 270 WSM outclasses my 7mm rem mag with 2" less barrel a short action, less recoil, less weight, and burning less powder. There are the 7mmSTWs and ultra mags out there, but those are for people who don't mind replacing a barrel after a few trips to the range, and paying gosh awful money for brass and ammo. What does all that extra powder, recoil, pricey brass, burnt barrels and muzzleblast get you? w/200yd zero it gets 1 inch less drop @400yd 1 inch! Burning 31 MORE GR OF POWDER at max loads for each!! I'll take the WSM anyday over the Ultramag, it is just a hella better cartrage in more ways then I care to cover here. Now I am not in love with the .277 bore like I am with the 6.5s but heck if it works go with it. The 250fps advantage the WSM holds over the 270win is more then a slight advantage in my book. I can push 130gr to 3150fps in my win and 3400 in my WSM, that is hardly a "small margin" that is wider then the margin the 270 win holds over the old 300 Savage in identical bullet weights.
BTW for those who have not checked their reloading manuals the WSM runs neck and neck with the 270 Wby, again burning alot less powder in the process.
Now those who know me on here know that I rarely even hunt with my magnums, my go to gun is a 6.5x55 unless I am hunting WIDE open areas, but if you need super speed and ultra flat trajectory without spending a fortune the 270 WSM is the king of the hill.

helotaxi
February 3, 2012, 11:49 PM
...but if you need super speed and ultra flat trajectory without spending a fortune the 270 WSM is the king of the hill.I'd give the 7mm WSM that title actually. The same muzzle velocity as the 270WSM with a heavier bullet boasting a better BC while burning roughly the same amount of powder. Lees overbore so it's more efficient and has better bullets available as well.

Kachok
February 3, 2012, 11:57 PM
For speed and trajectory I give it to the 270 WSM for efficiency and downrange energy the 7mm WSM has it beat. The difference in overbore between a .277 and .284 cal burning the same amout of powder is splitting hairs but I will give that one to you. If you want to throw light bullets very very fast the 130 and 140gr 270 WSM is unreal, if you want to carry huge amounts of energy out to 600 yards and beyond a 7mm WSM loaded with 168 or 180gr VLDs is king of the hill, and a top notch 1,000 match rifle, yep the WSMs just broke ANOTHER 1,000yd match record with a 2.67" grouping. But it is totaly a fad of course, those guys were just holding back all these years waiting for a fad to come around that they could promote it right LOL People who think the WSMs are a fad that will die off tomarow are only kidding themselves. They have been saying the same thing for over a decade now and all the while the WSMs have cought on like wildfire and are still growing.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 02:16 AM
There are the 7mmSTWs and ultra mags out there, but those are for people who don't mind replacing a barrel after a few trips to the range, and paying gosh awful money for brass and ammo. What does all that extra powder, recoil, pricey brass, burnt barrels and muzzleblast get you? w/200yd zero it gets 1 inch less drop @400yd 1 inch! Burning 31 MORE GR OF POWDER at max loads for each!!

If you want to split hairs, don't you think it's worth mentioning that the STW and ultra achieve that flatter trajectory with a bullet that's 25 grains heavier? It's not just the flatter trajectory, it's that they carry 25% more energy at range. As well, the higher BC of the 7mm bullets means that the further you get, the more advantage they have.

And the STW doesn't burn 31 more grains than a WSM; More like 10-ish. The WSM is usually around 65-70 grs. with max loads. 7mm STW uses 75-80 grs.

So, with the STW, that 15-20% increase in powder consumption provides a ~25% increase in energy at 500 yards. Doesn't look so wasted now, does it................

The 7mm Ultra................I agree, too overbore. It cannot make use of the extra 10-15 grs. over the STW, achieving identical performance, just with more recoil. It's a safe bet to say that the STW is the pinnacol of 7mm performance.

*Ballistic comparisons done using the heaviest Sierra Gamekings for caliber and JBM calculator.

Oh, I almost forgot my most important point. The good 'ol 7mm Rem Mag, maxxed out, can drive 175's from a 24" tube right at 3,000 FPS. This leaves them hitting 2" lower than the .270 WSM at 500 yards, but with 200 ft/lbs greater energy, courtesy of the higher BC bullet :)

And P.S.-I have nothing invested in this, really. I don't own any 7mm mags. Me? I'll keep my 8mm Rem Mag. Burning exactly 80 grs. in the 24" barrel, it spits a 220 gr. pill out at 2,965. At 500 yards, it hits 3" lower than your max 150 gr. WSM load, but it hits with 35% more energy at that range. With a 180 grainer, I can have the same trajectory as the .270 WSM and still hit with an additional 550 ft/lbs at 500 with the same 80 gr. charge.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 02:39 AM
OK dude where on earth are you getting your information, my manuals show you are not just wrong but not even close, the starting loads for the STW and Ultra mag are well above my max!!
To get that high performance lets look at loads for both
7mm STW 160gr bullet
starting load 85gr AA8700 3058fps max load 89gr @ 3184fps
270 WSM 160gr bullet
Starting load 64gr N170@2926fps max load 68gr @3107fps
So you are burning 21gr more powder to get 77fps and even that is probably the result of the STW being tested in a 26" barrel vs the WSMs 24" last I checked a 270 win looses 37fps per inch I assume a magnum would loose a few more then that. Not to mention the STWs 7mm bore giving the pressure a greater cross section to push against. The Ultra magnum looks even worse beleive it or not.
The WSMs rival the uber hot mega mags with much smaller powder charges, that is how they have avoided the barrel burner rap other high speed magnums have earned, yes the sharp 35 degree shoulder has something to do with it too, but increased efficiency lions share of that.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 03:40 AM
OK dude where on earth are you getting your information, my manuals show you are not just wrong but not even close, the starting loads for the STW and Ultra mag are well above my max!!

Well, those were some nicely rounded numbers that were means from a few sources, but OK, let's go with the Sierra 5th edition:

.270 WSM, 150 gr.

Highest listed velocity: 3,000 FPS (24" barrel)

Powders/charges:
RE-19, 62.4 grs.
MagPro, 67.7 grs.
RE-22, 63.3 grs.
H1000, 68.4 grs.
Retumbo, 70.2 grs.

7mm Rem Mag, 175 gr.

Highest listed velocity: 3,000 FPS (26" barrel)

Powders/charges:
RE-19, 63.5 grs.

7mm STW, 175 gr.

Highest listed velocity: 3,100 FPS (26" barrel)

Powders/charges:
H4831SC, 74.0 grs
H870, 86.3 grs.

H870 is, of course, a horribly inefficient powder. There is plenty of data out there for the STW above 3,100 FPS with a 175 gr. using 80 grs. or less.

As well, the Sierra manual shows 7mm RM with 100 FPS higher velocity than the WSM using near identical (62.0-71.5 gr.) charges under a 150 gr. bullet in either. Now, that's a 26" barrel, but even if we assume 50 FPS/inch loss, that still leaves the old 7mm RM being just as efficient as the WSM.

If the WSM floats your boat, then go for it. It's a fine choice for big game. But any "advantage" it has over numerous other catridges is pure fiction.

And once again, I'm not arguing in favor of the 7mm RUM. It's useless, has ZERO advantage over the STW. That case is just too big for .284" bore. It's very borderline for .308".

Oh, BTW-If you wanna look at efficiency, the .270 WSM loses big time to the old .280 Rem. Our handloads (150 gr. Gameking, Win brass, Win standard rifle primers, 54.6 grs. IMR-4350) clocked an average of 3,045 FPS from a 22" Ruger M77. Chrony Gamma Master, 15' from muzzle, 31 Dec. 2003, 30* F, 7,600 ft.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 03:44 AM
I won't be using that manual, Nosler #6 quotes the 150gr 270 WSM at just shy of 3200fps with 68gr of Magpro, that is much higher then the 3000 you quoted. I have used numerous loads from this manual with 0 pressure signs. You might want to get some better information if you with to debate this point, I have studied high speed cartrages in great detail.
If you want to compare efficiency of the 280 to the WSM I can do that too
280 Rem 140gr 57gr H4831sc 3002fps
270WSM 140gr 57gr RL22 3012fps (starting load)
Not bad since this is not even warming up the WSMs pressure limits. Now just add 4 more grains of RL22 and the WSM is pushing 3182fps!

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 04:04 AM
You might want to get some better information if you with to debate this point, I have studied high speed cartrages in great detail.

You ask where I'm getting my data, I give you a VERY reputable source, but you don't like the numbers, so you dismiss it and appeal to your own "expertise" on the matter?

I load for 47 different cartridges at present, and have pushed the envelope with every one of them. So I, too, have quite a bit of experience with "high speed cartridges", including several that eclipse 4,000 FPS by no small margin. I have binders full of load data from my own guns and other people's, over multiple chonographs at many altitudes under many different environmental conditions. Studied it? Yup. Tested it in the real world? Check that too.

We're done here. People can read and decide for themselves.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 04:09 AM
If Serrias hottest 270 WSM load is hundreds of fps below published loads from nosler that I have varified myself, then yes you need better information. Nothing personal, but that manual must suck, what does it list for max load 140gr 6.5x55?
Might I recomend you load and shoot some 270 WSM before you bash it with no knowlage of it other then some VERY poor load data.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 04:25 AM
that manual must suck, what does it list for max load 140gr 6.5x55?

2,700 FPS, 40.0 IMR-4064, 44.1 AA-4350, 45.7 RE-22

My real-world results? Out of my M96, 42.0 grs. IMR 4350 gives 2,660 FPS.

Might I recomend you load and shoot some 270 WSM before you bash it with no knowlage [SIC] of it other then some VERY poor load data.

Yeah, Sierra has no clue about bullets and reloading...........:rolleyes:

They're only one of the largest bulletmakers, and have been doing it since the 40's

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=about

No load book will exactly match your results. There are myriad variables, and I've had the data be off by as much as 300 FPS in either direction from many different sources on many occasions. That .280 load shouldn't have been that fast.......but it was, consistently. Same with my 100 gr, 3,585 FPS .25-06 load and my 3,315 FPS 180 gr. 8mm Mag load. Seems to me you're just running with book data, not actually chronographing the loads.

For the record, I'm not bashing the cartridge, I'm just not diluded about what it is or isn't. It's a perfectly capable cartridge that does no more or less with no more or less than several others. That's a fact.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 04:36 AM
Like I said before, I don't mean anything personal by this, but even factory foddor excedes serrias max load by over 100fps, that will tell you right there that they did something really wrong. Don't take my word for it if you know someone that loads for the 270 WSM ask them and they will tell you that Serrias max load data is WAY off.
BTW I can push almost a 100 fps faster with my 6.5x55, but I have a modern action. Nosler lists 52gr of H1000 at 2790fps, though I have found that to be excessive for deer hunting around here, I load them down a little with RL22.
Dang that is one hot 25-06, I have been fighting the itch to get one latley.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 04:54 AM
that will tell you right there that they did something really wrong.

I always reference several books when searching out a new load. They'll always show different data and results. Let's revisit the 7mm Rem Mag. Sierra shows the 63.5 gr. RE-19 load at 3,000, while my Speer #13 shows only 62.0 grs. as max for 2,812 FPS.

The velocity any of them recorded will not likely be what you get.......not even using the exact same gun under nearly-identical circumstances. That doesn't mean that their methods are flawed. It just means that they got a different result. I've had two of my own guns in the same chambering and tube length give wildly different results with the same loads.

You can never know what your loads are doing without chronographing them.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2012, 07:29 AM
It has zero practical advantages over anything else out there. The WSMs were and are nothing more than a way to sell more guns (I have no problem with that, everyone has to eat)

Guys....especially young guys it seems are always looking for "more power".... when in fact there's nothing on this planet that hasn't been being killed on an efficient and regular basis with cartridges that have been around for 50-100yrs.... with ammo that is plentiful, inexpensive and available most anywhere...

But they are an excuse to buy something else... maybe nothing wrong with that... but "practical"? NO

quartermaster
February 4, 2012, 07:38 AM
On the lighter side, the WSMs will make deer deader.

I think that if we all looked at our gun collections and the baliistics for all of them, we would all find that there are many redundancies, particularly with the 270 vs 7MM. Whether it be the .270 Winchester vs the .280 Remington, or the .270 WSM vs the 7MM WSM. Lets face it, cartridge capacity is pretty much the same and you are talking about .007" difference in bullet diameter. That may make for a bit better BC, but unless you are an extreme long range shooter, it doesn't make much of a difference for most of us. I believe we brian wash ourselves into thinking one is better than the other so we have an excuse to buy another rifle. That's not a bad thing

In my case, my favorite calibers are in the guns which shoot most accurately. Most of the time this is not neccesarily due to the caliber, but has more to due with the luck of the draw on buying the rifle. If you happen to get one with a relatively trued action and a good barrel, it may become your favorite caliber vs. a similar caliber.

I have the .204s thru the .300s and the .270 thru .300 WSMs and I love them all, even if you group them into 3 or 4 different catagories which will all perform in the same manner for 99% of us.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 11:43 AM
OK lets settle this once and for all, lets look at the WSMs "slight advantage" using the same bullet with max loads for each. Feel free to double check the numbers yourself.
270 Win 130gr SST 54gr W760 3150fps
Energy (ft/lbs) 100yd 2476, 200yd 2144, 300yd 1849, 400yd 1587, 500yd, 1357
Trajectory (100yd zero) 200yd, -2.57", 300yd -9.85", 400yd -22.58, 500yd -41.67" Drift 10mph 500yd crosswind 17.31"
270 WSM 130gr SST 65gr RL22 3400fps
Energy (ft/lbs)100yd 2895, 200yd 2514, 300yd 2177, 400yd 1877, 500yd 1613
Trajectory (100yd zero) 200 -1.98" 300yd -7.99" 400yd -18.61" 500yd -34.63 Drift 10mph 500yd crosswind 15.65"
I call that a solid performance, 7.04" less drop, 1.66" less drift, 473ft/lbs more energy, and unlike the ultra mags of the world that burn nearly a hundred gr of powder the WSM delivers a world class performance with only 8-12gr more powder then the 270 win in all bullet weights. I have always liked the old 270 win, but nobody should expect it to stand toe to toe with a true high performance magnum. If by your standards you still think of the WSM as a "slight advantage" then you would have to consider the 7mm STW 270 WBY, 257Wby and 7mm Ultra mag a "slight advantage" over the 270 win as well, the difference in trajectory between the WSM and the others is splitting tiny hairs, less then a 1/2" at 500 yards.

kaferhaus
February 4, 2012, 04:35 PM
All the long range numbers are well and good but pretty much mean nothing for over 95% or more of the guys hunting in this country.

Under ideal hunting conditions... ie: sitting in a shooting house with a iffy front rest, the vast majority of guys do not have the skill to accurately place a shot at 300yds.

According to various state game agencies the average distance an animal is taken be it white tail, black tail, mule, elk, caribou or moose is under 100yds.

Anyone shooting at a game animal past 400yds is in my opinion showing poor ethics. Such shots are almost never required and are only taken in an attempt to bolster the hunters ego, without regard to the suffering that the game animal is likely to incur.

Tiny errors at 300+yds lead to huge errors on the target. In a hunting environment very few guys have spent neither the time nor money involved in proper technique and practice to make those shots in field conditions in cold weather. Very few even know exactly where their POI is going to be at 100yds in that temperature much less at over 300.

Talk to some professional guides.... they can't stand customers who insist on taking long shots... lots of lost animals or animals that had to be tracked for hours on end only to be found down but still alive. Yet the hunter is all smiles like he accomplished something by gut shooting a animal at 400yds... of course they never tell the story that way.... it is always what a perfect shot they made in such horrid conditions, terrible angle, yada yada yada.

Having leased a good deal of our land to several "outfitters", the stories abound... Most do however want a shot they can make without too much trouble and the guides are all too happy to make it happen for them as it saves stress on everyone. Especially the animal.

Kachok
February 4, 2012, 05:12 PM
Oh I agree completly, that is why I leave the magnums at the house unless I am hunting my friends large peanut field. I think the extra energy is just wasted meat in the brush, but some people love the 270 WSM up close too because it really does produce dramatic bang flop kills with fast expanding bullets, I am talking limp on impact, fist sized exit wounds kills!! I personaly have never had any problem recovering my game with 6.5x55, 308, or 270 win so I stick with them mostly. But if I lived back in west Texas where 300yd+ shots are not rare at all the 270 WSM would be my go to gun, I just perfer it to my old 7mm Rem Mags

precisionrifle14
February 7, 2012, 12:15 AM
Ok so I think I get it, excluding the whole argument about reloading data. Although I personally would feel comfortable tgaking a 500-600 yard shot on a deer. I have experience at those ranges, and I am almost certain they would result in a dropped deer.

Kachok
February 7, 2012, 12:33 AM
Oh yeah, if you are comfortable shooting at those ranges the WSM will do it, it will match the performance of the 7mm Rem mag with 130-150gr bullets, I don't know what Serria messed up when they tested the 270 WSM but I have it from several reputable sources that the performance is between 150-200 fps faster then what they came up with (as are factory loads), so that is not even in real debate.

If you enjoyed reading about "270 wsm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!