Most hunters use fast .30s, a few use 7mms. The 7mm Remington mag is well established but not so versatile as the .30-06. All of these are fat-cased unbelted cartridges. Even for the most long-gone rifle nut it is impossible to love them all equally. All of the WSM's seem completely adequate to me, but the higher BC's of the 7mm seem to be a bit of an edge over both the 270 and 300. Please note, the following information reflects the estimated average ballistics for each caliber and does not …
Not finding a ton of them in 26" though.
30-06 will also work well if elk is in the mix. When moisture (either rain or snow) gets into a firearms barrel, nothing good takes place. Go into a hunting store and try and find 270 wsm ammo in the gr and type of bullet you use. If not reloading then the 7mm, better bullet selection and cheaper ammo. This is a bewildering array of new cartridges for the market to digest. The energy for this load, at the muzzle, is 3185 foot-pounds, a nice, neat energy increase of 500 foot-pounds.
So, just for sake of argument, let’s take Federal’s 140-grain Trophy Bonded Bearclaw load in each cartridge. Like the .270 Weatherby Magnum—released 60 years prior to the .270 WSM—it betters the velocity of the .270 Winchester, but I’m not certain that the increased velocity is necessarily required. Something else to consider if you don't reload. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. In Mongolia in 2005 I hunted several areas ranging from mountains to desert to forest. Need something cheaper, unless I found one used. More The Gun Nuts.
It's defeating to purpose.
+1. The proper arguement is the 30-06 vs. the 270, has been for years... Is there a difference in performance between 7s with 24" and 26" barrels? Both rounds are capable of any animal and even the bears of Alaska but there are guides that require a .30 caliber as a minimum. And not only was it a bull elk, it was the largest bull that I have had in my sights with a tag in my hand. Me, I’m a .270 nut and a .30-caliber freak. Starting in about 1998 I think we went into a second magnum craze. Now you can tune the load to your rifle and afford to practice twice as much. Pushing a 150-grain bullet to 3250 fps, the .270 WSM certainly earns the Magnum title, but at what cost? With that you just cut the cost of premium ammo by 2/3 and cheap ammo by 1/2. We have a variety of deals on Rifle Ammo, Handgun Ammo, Shotgun Ammo & Rimfire Ammo, as well as ammo for target practice, plinking, hunting, or shooting competitions. Most of these new cartridges are about packaging. But to each his own, the Win M70 classics came in 26" if my memory is holding up.
Not going to see much use, so I figure it should cover everything I might ever hunt, which means pronghorns to mule deer and *maybe* an elk (ideally a cow since I'm more interested in eating than mounting it). If you read my post, what I said was that a 26" barrel is not better than a 24" barrel for carrying and handling. Just my 2 cents worth. You must log in or register to reply here.
I personally just like the ballistics of the 7mm and 160-168 grain bullets.
With that being said I would have gotten the 7mm if I had it to do over. That maybe less costly that rechambering your existing rifle. It isn’t my place to say it’s the best of the new magnums—it may well not be.
It's defeating to purpose. I have had a couple of long rifle barrels and now prefer 24".
If things go well it should account for a moose in Sweden, then an ibex and a chamois in Spain. It is more available than the .270 Weatherby Magnum has ever been. .07 difference in bore and 15 grs. Ballistics Comparison for 270 And he can get a WSM in a nice, light package if that's what he wants. The 270 WSM doesn't beat 270 by more than 50 fps with equal bullet weights. Latest. A buddy who fancies the 7mm STW (which is more obscure and more painful than I'm interested in) had talked me up from the .270 Win to the .270 WSM. More The Gun Nuts. As illustrated in the chart, .270 WSM Winchester Short Magnum rounds - on average - achieve a velocity of about 3240 feet per second (fps) while 7mm-08 Remington rounds travel at a velocity of 2830 fps. Should I use a 270wsm or 7mm? (atleast it has been for me). I have worked with them all on the range, and have done at least a little hunting with most of them. However, the burning efficiency that allows it to do what it does from a fairly tidy case is also conducive to accuracy, as is the shorter and thus more rigid action it can be housed in.
The photo below does a great job of showing the differences in external … While the trajectory gains are modest, never forget that energy goes up exponentially as velocity increases.
This, to me, is the most significant benefit of the .270 WSM over the good old .270. The actual difference in velocity between it and the .270 Winchester varies greatly with the load, as little as just 100 fps; as much as a whopping 400 fps. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a good 150 grain bullet out of a .270. That is to say, .270 WSM Winchester Short Magnum bullets travel 3.7 times the speed of a 737 airplane at cruising speed, while 7mm-08 Remington bullets travel 3.2 times that same speed.
The same bullet in the same company’s .270 WSM load has a muzzle velocity of 3200 fps, a fairly significant improvement of 260 fps. Because of burning efficiencies achieved in the same shorter, fatter cases, generally they can strut their stuff from somewhat shorter barrels. But I have fast .30s in .300 Winchester Magnum, .300 H&H, and .300 Weatherby Magnum, and I don’t see the new cartridges replacing these tried-and-true cartridges, at least not in my orisons. In the 270 wsm you are burning a bunch of powder in expensive brass to push a bullet out at high velocity to have the bullet just dump it all quick. Either one. The 7mm has more options for heavier bullets but the 270 has good offerings by matrix and cutting edge bullets but only if you reload.
One way to think about this is as such: a foot-pound is a unit of energy equal to the amount of energy required to raise a weight of one pound a distance of one foot. Looking at the availability of brass and ammo, it seems like the old 7 mm Magnum would be a better choice. You can't get all of the performance out of either of them with a 24" barrel. I have a .270WSM and a 7mmSAUM and the .270 does seem to be the one that has gained more popularity. With the whims of the marketplace it may or may not stay readily available. Is there much of a difference for Elk. I’ve used the 7mm RUM a lot, the .300 WSM quite a bit, and I think the new kid on the block, the .300 RCM is cool because it feeds so well. Especially trajectory and wind deflection. Following the immediate success of the .300 WSM in 2001, the .270 and 7mm WSM were introduced in 2002.
But it is my favorite. Violate this principle by, for example, chambering a lightweight, short action rifle for a powerful Magnum cartridge like the .300 WSM and the result will be a dramatic increase in kick. On my second hunt for these sheep I took a Winchester Model 70 in .270 WSM, and it worked wonderfully. I was shooting one just today, getting it ready for a fall hunt in Europe. One thing I do believe: All of these new cartridges are extremely well designed, and all do pretty much what their manufacturers say they will do. In the WSM .270 fans found a short, powerful, efficient round that could be housed in compact, lightweight short-action rifles and which edged closer to 7mm Rem. There are many cartridges that could handle such a variety of situations. You get a longer neck by going to the 7/270 WSM, and the longest neck of the WSMs by going to a 7/300 WSM. I'm not going to recommend something I wouldn't use. The .270 WSM is a good cartridge but, honestly, it is a very small player in terms of market share. None exactly break new ground in the performance department, although the long-cased RUMs and the two Weatherby magnums are pretty much the fastest in their class.
The press is light and doesn't feel like quality but it is. In a brief period we have seen: Four long Remington Ultra Mags and two short Remington Short Action Ultra Mags; four Winchester Short Magnums and three Winchester Super Short Magnums; and now two Ruger Compact Magnums. There are guys taking elk at 600 yards with 260 and 6.5 Creedmoor. It doesn’t break new ballistic ground; technically the 65-year-old .270 Weatherby Magnum is just as fast. In the end, that will matter much more than all the other stuff.
Why the lee kit? Just because it can be done does not mean it makes sense, despite what you might read in advertising copy. One of the most accurate rifles I ever bought (after rebedding)was a used M700 stainless SPS 7 Rem mag 24" barrel. Except the .270 WSM offers its performance from a shorter action, and does it with a shorter barrel.
This is only about a seven percent increase, so while the .270 WSM with an aerodynamic bullet is about as flat-shooting as anything out there (as is the .270 Weatherby), it isn’t really all that much flatter-shooting than the .270 Winchester, certainly not enough improvement to get really excited about. I used the .270 WSM in Mongolia for everything from small gazelle to big ibex. I have a model 70 in 7mm WSM and was thinking of chambering/swapping out barrels and making it a 270 WSM...any thoughts??
You can spend a lot more for equipment but until you get to the very top of the line stuff you are not getting anymore performance. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages. In the 270 wsm you are burning a bunch of powder in expensive brass to push a bullet out at high velocity to have the bullet just dump it all quick. I think of the two I prefer the 7 tho, with a bit more range of bullet weights. Of course, this would only matter if you were going to use it for game bigger than deer-sized. So a .270 WSM Winchester Short Magnum round exits the barrel with kinetic energy equal to the energy required for linear vertical displacement of 3170 pounds through a one foot distance, while a 7mm-08 Remington round exiting the barrel has energy equal to the amount required to displace 2450 pounds over the same one foot distance. The .277 family of bullets are comparatively poor ballistic performers in common weights and the new high bc .277 bullets will not stabilize with factory twist rate barrels. IMO the 270 wsm offers you nothing in the performance potential department compared to a 7mm mag. Or any other reason to choose one over the other? The following ammunition cartridge ballistics information and chart can be used to approximately compare .270 WSM Winchester Short Magnum vs 7mm-08 Remington ammo rounds. Unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to own one of everything, the obvious choice between these two would be to go with the 7mm - IMO. With the 7 mag you have a better chance of find ammo. Both the .270 and 7mm mag.