270 wsm

[MachIVshooter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...........

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.