Mountain rifle ideas

[jmad_81]

Guys I'm looking at building a light mountain rifle. I have a .270 WSM laying around and love the caliber. I'm thinking a 24 in. fluted stainless barrel but i'm not sure about conture. Looking at going with a McMillian edge stock painted gray. I havn't decided on a scope yet but am looking pretty hard at a VXIII 4.5-14 or maybe a swarovski around the same power or a little less. My question is do you guys have any reasons NOT to go with the 270 WSM? I want the naked gun wo be around 6-6.5 lbs. With a scope and sling and all that I want it to be no more than 7.5lbs.

Mostly I would use this for deer, speed goats, big horns, and Mt. goats (if I can ever draw a tag). But my bro's and I do some back country deer and elk combos in Idaho so elk need to be a possibility as well.

So what do you think?

 

[JD338]

The 270 WSM would great for what you are wanting to do. Look at a # 3 contour with fluting. To make your weight goal, consider the VXIII 2.5x8. Very bright optics and you will have no problems shooting speed goats/deer at 500 yds. Its also available in the B&C reticle.

JD338

 

[Big Squeeze]

Guys I'm looking at building a light mountain rifle. I have a .270 WSM laying around and love the caliber. I'm thinking a 24 in. fluted stainless barrel but i'm not sure about conture. Looking at going with a McMillian edge stock painted gray. I havn't decided on a scope yet but am looking pretty hard at a VXIII 4.5-14 or maybe a swarovski around the same power or a little less. My question is do you guys have any reasons NOT to go with the 270 WSM? I want the naked gun wo be around 6-6.5 lbs. With a scope and sling and all that I want it to be no more than 7.5lbs.

Mostly I would use this for deer, speed goats, big horns, and Mt. goats (if I can ever draw a tag). But my bro's and I do some back country deer and elk combos in Idaho so elk need to be a possibility as well.

So what do you think?

.........................For what you want to do, the 270 WSM that you just happen to have laying around would be just about as ideal as you can get!! A great flat shooter..........To keep your weight down, I`ll agree with JD that the lower variable 2.5x8 VX3 would be a better choice. And you could also go with the Leupy Ultralite in the 3x9 VX2. In reality though, longer range hunts should never require more magnification than 5x to 7x anyway! That combo should keep your weight down to around 7.5 lbs., maybe less!

 

[Savage99]

I prefer the 7mm over the .277". The 7's have a faster twist and shoot longer bullets with superior BC's.

There really is no valid reason, in theory, for a .277" bore.

True I went and bought a .270 WSM as I thought the 7mm WSM would die and indeed it might be dead. Now that Berger has come out with the 168 gr VLD with its very high BC I wish my Kimber were a 7mm.

Berger may come out with a 140 gr VLD for the .270's but its no 168 gr 7mm.

As for the rifle get what turns you on.

I like the Kimbers myself.

 

[HunterJim]

jmad 81,

Whenever light comes up in rifles I think about Mel Forbes and his NULA rifles. My M24 .30-'06 has a 24" stainless barrel in number two contour, and it goes 5-3/4 lbs without the scope.

It is great for carrying up and down those hills, and I intend to mount a Swarovski this year.

jim

 

[Richracer1]

There really is no valid reason, in theory, for a .277" bore.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you, but that's my opinion, just like that's yours. Cheers.

 

[Big Squeeze]

I prefer the 7mm over the .277". The 7's have a faster twist and shoot longer bullets with superior BC's.

There really is no valid reason, in theory, for a .277" bore.

True I went and bought a .270 WSM as I thought the 7mm WSM would die and indeed it might be dead. Now that Berger has come out with the 168 gr VLD with its very high BC I wish my Kimber were a 7mm.

Berger may come out with a 140 gr VLD for the .270's but its no 168 gr 7mm.

As for the rifle get what turns you on.

I like the Kimbers myself.

.......................No valid reason "in theory" for a .277 bore???????????............I think that `ol Jack O`Connor, if he were still alive, would certainly disagree, with what he would more than likely call your comment,,, "a very ridiculous statement!".......And I don`t even own a .270!!.........The bullet BC`s are better for the 7`s, but when you run downrange ballistic comparisons between a 270 WSM 150 grainers and say a 7 WSM or the 7mm Rem. in the 154`s and the 160`s, they are not too far off from each other!...The difference between the two, is certainly not enough to make a difference between success or failure on a hunt. If so, then failure would come from hunter error as opposed to any differences between the 270WSM vs a 7 WSM or the 7 Remy Mag!!

 

[Big Squeeze]

I prefer the 7mm over the .277". The 7's have a faster twist and shoot longer bullets with superior BC's.

There really is no valid reason, in theory, for a .277" bore.

True I went and bought a .270 WSM as I thought the 7mm WSM would die and indeed it might be dead. Now that Berger has come out with the 168 gr VLD with its very high BC I wish my Kimber were a 7mm.

Berger may come out with a 140 gr VLD for the .270's but its no 168 gr 7mm.

As for the rifle get what turns you on.

I like the Kimbers myself.

.......................No valid reason "in theory" for a .277 bore???????????............I think that `ol Jack O`Connor, if he were still alive, would certainly disagree, with what he would more than likely call your comment,,, "a very ridiculous statement!".......And I don`t even own a .270!!.........The bullet BC`s are better for the 7`s, but when you run downrange ballistic comparisons between a 270 WSM 150 grainers and say a 7 WSM or the 7mm Rem. in the 154`s and the 160`s, they are not too far off from each other!...The difference between the two, is certainly not enough to make a difference between success or failure on a hunt. If so, then failure would come from hunter error as opposed to any differences between the 270WSM vs a 7 WSM or the 7 Remy Mag!!

.........

Here are some ballistic comparisons for follow up that I find very interesting;

270 WSM; 150 gr. Horn SST; BC= .525

Range Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Velocity 3050 2867 2691 2522 2359 2202
Energy 3098 2737 2412 2119 1854 1616
Traj. 300
yard zero -1.5 +3.4 +4.1 0.0 -9.5 -25.3


7mm WSM; 162 gr. Horn SST; BC= .550

Range Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500
Velocity 3000 2827 2661 2500 2345 2196
Energy 3237 2875 2546 2248 1979 1735
Traj. 300
yard zero -1.5 +3.5 +4.2 0.0 -9.7 -25.8


Jmad...............Since you already have the 270 WSM, save some money and stick with it!!!..............As you can see by the above #`s, any comparisons between a 270 WSM, a 7 WSM or even a 7mm Rem. Mag. are at best, very small. You can use the heavier 160 grainers for moose in the 270 WSM. The 150`s are fine for elk!..............Not too bad for a cartridge that according to some, has no valid reason "in theory" to exist!!...........Using the right bullet, if you can`t get your animal with a 270 WSM, you sure as hell are not going to get it with a 7mm either!!!

 

[bullet]

You use a 270 Weatherby Mag and the difference disappears because of the velocity of the 270Wby which will smoke the 7mmWSM or the Rem Mag. The 270 Win in it's own right has been so successful in the field that it's accomplishments justify it's use and in practical terms for hunting purposes there is no real difference between the 7mm and 270 in comparable cartridges. In fact I have made very long shots and successful ones in the field with my a 270Win which was my main go to gun from 1980 to 1989 and I would have to sit down and take time to recall all the game I killed with that 270Win. Great round and a few well known men in history have made that clear. Marginally different in ballistics is not enough evidence to say there is no reason for the .277 to exist or you would have to say that about many other very successful cartridges that are used in the field. Success of a given cartridge is not to be defined by BC but in my opinion by the game lying dead in the field because the cartridge works well and that means the .277 is a successful cal.

 

[Big Squeeze]

You use a 270 Weatherby Mag and the difference disappears because of the velocity of the 270Wby which will smoke the 7mmWSM or the Rem Mag. The 270 Win in it's own right has been so successful in the field that it's accomplishments justify it's use and in practical terms for hunting purposes there is no real difference between the 7mm and 270 in comparable cartridges. In fact I have made very long shots and successful ones in the field with my a 270Win which was my main go to gun from 1980 to 1989 and I would have to sit down and take time to recall all the game I killed with that 270Win. Great round and a few well known men in history have made that clear. Marginally different in ballistics is not enough evidence to say there is no reason for the .277 to exist or you would have to say that about many other very successful cartridges that are used in the field. Success of a given cartridge is not to be defined by BC but in my opinion by the game lying dead in the field because the cartridge works well and that means the .277 is a successful cal.

.................... :wink: ...Jmad!.......... "Bullet" is right!........As a matter of fact, given the same barrel length, same bullet weights and depending on the individual rifle, the 270 WSM will approach the 270 Weatherby to within about 100-150 fps. With reloads just maybe even closer!................The 270 WSM to the 270 Wby. is like comparing the 300 Win. to the 300 Wby. But to keep your rifle as light as possible for, as you say "mountain use", the advantage here will go to the 270 WSM!!!

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

JMAD, as always, JD has some good idea's. I like to stay with the #3+ contour because it makes the bench work easier. Any on the short Mags would be great. If you wanted to "fill in" a caliber, this would be a great time, or you could get something that would shoot the bullets you have on the shelf, and have to use less shelf space.

As for scopes, if I was going to spend more time hunting Mountain goats, I like the idea of the 2.5 to 8. If I would shoot more speed goats with it, I'd consider the 4.5-14.

Savage, concerning the twist on a .277 barrel, I can call my barrel maker and have a .227 barrel in any twist I want. 1 in 4 to 1 in 100, and anything in between in 1/4 twist incriments.

 

[jmad_81]

Thanks guys. Sounds like for the most part you all agree on the 270 WSM idea. I have all of the laoding stuff for it and .277 bullets laying around everywear. I like the numbers it puts out and with handloads I know I can come very close to the 270 Weatherby. As far as a scope goes I might split the difference and go with a 3-9 or a 3.5-10 VXII with the BC. I have one on my 338WM abnd love it. This will be my first custom gun so i'm pretty excited about the idea :twisted: !!!

Would you guys get the action worked over (lapped, and blueprinted) while the smith has it? What about a trigger, stick with stock and clean it up a bit or go with an aftermarket one? the action is a Win. M70, I think it is called the super shadow or something like that.

 

[bullet]

Do as much as you can with your custom rifle build to tweak it in accordance with the amount of funs you have to spend on the project. Get the most for what you will spend and you will be more satisfied with the results.

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

If you have a 3.5-10 leupold on another rifle that you like, then go with it. It makes it just that much easier when you switch between rifles.

Square the action, Square the bolt, lap the lugs, (blueprint), the action, ABSOLUTELY.

Squaring the action (they actually square the front of it) means your barrel will screw on straighter.

Squaring the bolt face means every round will line up straighter with the bore

Lapping the lugs helps the bolt mate better with the action.

All of these things help accuracy, and when you consider the total cost of a custom job, don't really add that much to the overall cost. Just about any time I have a smith pull off a barrel, I'll ask him to do this work.

Lastly, I would consider a 26" barrel. The greatest disservice Winchester has done to this round is market it with a 24" barrel.

 

[Big Squeeze]

If you have a 3.5-10 leupold on another rifle that you like, then go with it. It makes it just that much easier when you switch between rifles.

Square the action, Square the bolt, lap the lugs, (blueprint), the action, ABSOLUTELY.

Squaring the action (they actually square the front of it) means your barrel will screw on straighter.

Squaring the bolt face means every round will line up straighter with the bore

Lapping the lugs helps the bolt mate better with the action.

All of these things help accuracy, and when you consider the total cost of a custom job, don't really add that much to the overall cost. Just about any time I have a smith pull off a barrel, I'll ask him to do this work.

Lastly, I would consider a 26" barrel. The greatest disservice Winchester has done to this round is market it with a 24" barrel.

................................I defintely agree with antelope on the work or modifications that you could do..........However, a 24" tube IMO, is not a dis-service to the 270 WSM cartridge. I disagree!......First! Any velocity loss from a barrel 2" shorter will be very minimal; like 15 to 30 fps. per inch or 30 to 60 fps. total........Secondly, the accuracy difference from a 24" barrel vs a 26" should be non-existent! Your reloads and your components will determine your overall accuracy, not the barrel length.........Thirdly! You are looking for a lighter mountain rifle. Granted, the 26" tube will not weigh that much more than a 24" but it still weighs more.............Fourth! The WSM`s performance in the shorter barrels is outstanding of which I can personally attest to. With todays modern powders and experimentation, I have taken my 300 WSM, with only a 16.5" tube and have chrono`d loads and then compared velocities with the same loadings in friend`s 300 WSM`s with 24" and 26" tubes....... Given the same loads or components, my average overall loss from the 24" tube is 3.7% to 4.2% and 4.8% to 5.2% vs. the 26" tube!......... When you break the #`s down, that translates to only a 15 to 30 fps. loss per inch of shorter barrel length.......... From a percentage standpoint the difference between a 24" tube vs the 26" will be alot smaller in the 270 and in the final analysis, any animal that you could possibly hunt with your 270 WSM, won`t know the difference anyway!.............A dis-service? Hardly!

 

[Big Squeeze]

Jmad!................In thinking about a 24" tube for your 270 WSM, you happen to be in very good company!.....

The following makers chamber the 270 WSM, using 24" tubes!

Winchester/FN in the M70.
All Weatherby Vanguards.
Ed Brown customs in the Damaras, Savannas and Bushvelds.

All Remington models available in the 270 WSM; SPS, XCR, Alaskan Ti.

Let`s not forget, that everything available from Browning in the 270 WSM comes with a 23" barrel; the A-Bolts and X-Bolts.

Sure! You can get a 26" tube. But at the same time, I wonder if all these makers feel that they are performing a dis-service to the 270 WSM, by only offering a 24" as standard length!..........You will be well served by the 24"

 

[jmad_81]

For me being my custom rifle I think I'd like to keep it 24 or under just for handeling ease. My338 WM has a 26 inch tube and I love what it does for the extra fps, but on this particular rifle I want light, effective, and quick handeling. If I was making a "bean field" type rifle a 26 inch tube would indeed be my choice!

 

[Big Squeeze]

For me being my custom rifle I think I'd like to keep it 24 or under just for handeling ease. My338 WM has a 26 inch tube and I love what it does for the extra fps, but on this particular rifle I want light, effective, and quick handeling. If I was making a "bean field" type rifle a 26 inch tube would indeed be my choice!

................Yep!very little to be gained going to the 26" vs the 24"........For me, I`d rather sacrifice a small percentage in the velocity dept. while on the flip side, gain a lighter, quicker, handier, better handling and a shorter unit in OAL. In the mountains, you won`t regret it!.......There will still be enough performance for long range plains hunting should that need arise!

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

I always figured the 24" factory barrels had more to do with manufacturing techniques then a reasonable decision about what was the best length for a given caliber. Most of you are right, with factory loads, the difference would probably be in the 30-50 fps range. With good hand loads, it can be in the 100-125 fps range. That's close to the gain you typically get going AI on a cartridge, and it's a lot less work. In my family we have 9 .270 winchesters, with tubes ranging from 22" to 26". The average difference between 22" and 26" with optimum handloads (not factory loads) is about 250 fps. I've had very similar results with the .338 Win Mag. In general the fatter the case, realitive to the bullet diameter, the more benefit you receive from a longer barrel. I just believe this is terriroty that has not been adequatly explored by the rifle "establishment" for the .270 Win Short Mag.

My personal mountain gun is a .270 Win, 22" tube and a 3-9 leupold. It shoots under 1/2 inch all day with 140gr nosler AB. If I ever shoot the barrel out, I'll square the action, square the bolt face, lap the lugs, and mount a 26" premium barrel in a #3, or #4 contour. Of course, that's just me. I'm a velocity nut that doesn't mind packing the extra weight so I have the best tool possible when the chips are down. But then again, now that I'm starting to get older, I might start caring a little more.

Roy know what he was doing when he put 26" tubes all the cartridges that held the Weatherby name. 8) I just think Winchester would of been smart to do the same with the short mags. But considering the quality of management decision being made by Winchester at that time, the 24" tubes didn't suprise me.

P.S. I love all the passion in this thread, it's great!! :grin:

 

[Big Squeeze]

I always figured the 24" factory barrels had more to do with manufacturing techniques then a reasonable decision about what was the best length for a given caliber. Most of you are right, with factory loads, the difference would probably be in the 30-50 fps range. With good hand loads, it can be in the 100-125 fps range. That's close to the gain you typically get going AI on a cartridge, and it's a lot less work. In my family we have 9 .270 winchesters, with tubes ranging from 22" to 26". The average difference between 22" and 26" with optimum handloads (not factory loads) is about 250 fps. I've had very similar results with the .338 Win Mag. In general the fatter the case, realitive to the bullet diameter, the more benefit you receive from a longer barrel. I just believe this is terriroty that has not been adequatly explored by the rifle "establishment" for the .270 Win Short Mag.

My personal mountain gun is a .270 Win, 22" tube and a 3-9 leupold. It shoots under 1/2 inch all day with 140gr nosler AB. If I ever shoot the barrel out, I'll square the action, square the bolt face, lap the lugs, and mount a 26" premium barrel in a #3, or #4 contour. Of course, that's just me. I'm a velocity nut that doesn't mind packing the extra weight so I have the best tool possible when the chips are down. But then again, now that I'm starting to get older, I might start caring a little more.

Roy know what he was doing when he put 26" tubes all the cartridges that held the Weatherby name. 8) I just think Winchester would of been smart to do the same with the short mags. But considering the quality of management decision being made by Winchester at that time, the 24" tubes didn't suprise me.

P.S. I love all the passion in this thread, it's great!! :grin:

...............................Antelope!! You like that passion uh?? That`s good, because that is how we learn new things and ideas!

Yep! `Ol Roy wanted that extra velocity from his 26" ers and from his Weatherby cartridges, because let`s face it; that extra velocity sells. In the case of the Weatherbys, very successfully! Also! Anytime the word "magnum" is used, that also sells. It has been a great advertising and marketing buzz word or tool in the shooting world for decades and justifyably so...............

As a former 300 Win. 24" tubed Vanguard owner for 35+ years and now a Ruger Frontier 300 WSM, 16.5" tubed compact owner, I realize that I am in the vast minority in owning such a shorty compact! Ruger discontinued the 300 WSM chambering for their Frontiers about 18 months ago, so as far as I know, these little goodies have the shortest barrels out there chambered in the 300 WSM. I was able to get one of the last available in the 300. Had the 300 WSM not been available in this compact, I`d still have my Vanguard because I did not want to lose that much ballistically in converting to a shorter rig.

Realizing that I was going to lose some velocity in return for
a shorter rifle, with my reloads, I was still able acquire some very accurate and some very surprising ballistic results, which weren`t too far off from my `ol 24"

150gr. SST @3155 fps............180gr. SST @ 2994 fps..........and a 200 gr. Nosler A/B @ 2828 fps..........All are max. loadings. I have yet to try the new Rel #17, which according to Alliant, gives the best velocity over all other listed powders in the Speer manual for the 300 WSM. including the 4350`s and 4831`s

I even used a friend`s chrony to back up or verify what mine had said
because I at first, couldn`t believe it myself! Both chronys came within just a few fps. of each other. How could this be?

My smith tells me that there are barrels which are faster than others due to a difference in tolerances, though extremely small, in the barrel`s manufacture. Two identical rifles with identical barrel lengths can vary, say 50, 100, maybe even up to 150 fps. slower or faster either way. He says that I simply have a faster barrel and to be thankful, that with ballistics like that, I can have my cake and eat it too; big rifle performance from a shorter, lighter, and handier outfit. Depending on the reload, I am also able to go about 3/4 grain to a grain and a quarter over the book max. without pressure signs, which according to my gunsmith, also contributes to the higher velocities.

I sure hope that I get the same, nice, fast and accurate barrel when my new 20" tubed Howa M1500 .375 Ruger comes in later this year...... :lol: :lol: :lol: ......