Wsm
- Thread starter jiggs
- Start date
Charlie-NY
Handloader
- Mar 11, 2005
- 1,410
- 808
7WSM all the way. I hate 270 anything. :lol: :grin: :lol:
- Nov 4, 2004
- 24,900
- 7,795
In the real world, .007" isn't really going to make that much difference.
The 270 holds a slight advantage in equal weight bullets with a higher BC value. The 7mm has many more bullet options.
If I were going to choose between the two, I would go 7mm.
JD338
The 270 holds a slight advantage in equal weight bullets with a higher BC value. The 7mm has many more bullet options.
If I were going to choose between the two, I would go 7mm.
JD338
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,184
- 2,822
7mm all the way. Versatility.
And this is coming from a 270 Bee owner and admirer.
And this is coming from a 270 Bee owner and admirer.
Greg Nolan
Handloader
- Nov 25, 2004
- 2,143
- 18
The advantage (as Pop said) is versitility. You can go up to 175 gr. bullets with the 7MM and only about 150 with the 270. If you want to hunt elk or moose 25 more grs. can give you a nice edge. In the words of my hero Elmer Keith " the 270 is a real good caliber, for hunting coyotes".
I have one and I've learned it's best on blacktail and whitetail deer rathe r than mule deer or elk. It has the power but bullet placement on larger animals is more critical even though it's magnum velocity.
My opinion :wink:
Good Hunting
Elkhunt :grin:
I have one and I've learned it's best on blacktail and whitetail deer rathe r than mule deer or elk. It has the power but bullet placement on larger animals is more critical even though it's magnum velocity.
My opinion :wink:
Good Hunting
Elkhunt :grin:
G
Guest
Guest
Just about the only caution to anyone considering the 7mmWSM (which is really the crown jewel of the WSM line) is that you'd better be a handloader, as the cartridge is dying a fairly fast death despite being the only really great WSM out there (it equals 7mmWby velocities with 2" less barrel). Stock up on brass and you should be fine.
A flat question like that is a loaded question. Too many variables. Depends on where you are hunting and what you are hunting. Versatility and a large menue of bullets to select from sounds great and impressive and has merit if you are using only one gun to hunt a large variety of game. Few hunters are content to do that. We all have our ideas about the variables to this question.
My view point: I think the 270 is one of the most balanced rounds available. It has reasonably long range potential, a good menue of bullets to select from with adequate weights and bullet construction for most applications (including a 160 gr. NP), has very reasonable recoil when compared to some of its competitors, comes in some very usable rifles and is is a very popular caliber which makes cartridges &/or components for reloading available in most every store. It is very deadly caliber.
Elmer Keith ..... He (and his attitude that the biggest and most powerful bullet available for any applications was best) had a great deal of disdain for Jack O'Conner who felt that at that time the 270 was the ultimate caliber. I think a gread deal of this disdain came from the fact that O'Conner could do with his 270 about what Keith could do with his cannons. Shot placement is the key to kills. IF you don't get the bullet in the right place a much larger bullet may be a little better.
I personally think Wayne Van Zwoll stated it very well in the new Nosler # 6 manual on page 265 when he said, "The 270 was a charter chambering in the Winchester 70 when it debuted in 1937. Since then it has apppeared in almost every suitable rifle-inclucing pumps, autoloaders and lever actions. Enthuiasts oftet credit Jack O'Conner with the 270's commercial success and surely he polished the round in print. But many other well-known hnters adored the 270. Some, I'm convinced chose other favorites simply because the 270 became O'Conner's pet-and because the cartrride was so good that it bacame uninteresting."
That being said if I lived out West and hunted the larger animals, Elk &/or Moose, a lot I would have to have a 300 Mag available for some of the hunting opportunities there. I would still have a 270 stand by gun. I also would have to try the 270WSM.
We hunters must accept the fact that many of the fancy new calibers make life interesting for us, are fun to play with and they create many good arguments and discussions within hunt clubs and around hunting campfires. But, other than academic discussions their main accomplishment is that they put many dollars in the coffers of gun manufactures and ammo component manufactures. When everything is considered we hunters are spending a fair chunck of change for little improvement over some of the older tried and proven stand bys. The older stand bys don't grab the envy of our fellow hunters like the new girl on the block but many of them get the job done just as effectively.
We all have our favorites. I am now getting a 260 to play with for a while.
My view point: I think the 270 is one of the most balanced rounds available. It has reasonably long range potential, a good menue of bullets to select from with adequate weights and bullet construction for most applications (including a 160 gr. NP), has very reasonable recoil when compared to some of its competitors, comes in some very usable rifles and is is a very popular caliber which makes cartridges &/or components for reloading available in most every store. It is very deadly caliber.
Elmer Keith ..... He (and his attitude that the biggest and most powerful bullet available for any applications was best) had a great deal of disdain for Jack O'Conner who felt that at that time the 270 was the ultimate caliber. I think a gread deal of this disdain came from the fact that O'Conner could do with his 270 about what Keith could do with his cannons. Shot placement is the key to kills. IF you don't get the bullet in the right place a much larger bullet may be a little better.
I personally think Wayne Van Zwoll stated it very well in the new Nosler # 6 manual on page 265 when he said, "The 270 was a charter chambering in the Winchester 70 when it debuted in 1937. Since then it has apppeared in almost every suitable rifle-inclucing pumps, autoloaders and lever actions. Enthuiasts oftet credit Jack O'Conner with the 270's commercial success and surely he polished the round in print. But many other well-known hnters adored the 270. Some, I'm convinced chose other favorites simply because the 270 became O'Conner's pet-and because the cartrride was so good that it bacame uninteresting."
That being said if I lived out West and hunted the larger animals, Elk &/or Moose, a lot I would have to have a 300 Mag available for some of the hunting opportunities there. I would still have a 270 stand by gun. I also would have to try the 270WSM.
We hunters must accept the fact that many of the fancy new calibers make life interesting for us, are fun to play with and they create many good arguments and discussions within hunt clubs and around hunting campfires. But, other than academic discussions their main accomplishment is that they put many dollars in the coffers of gun manufactures and ammo component manufactures. When everything is considered we hunters are spending a fair chunck of change for little improvement over some of the older tried and proven stand bys. The older stand bys don't grab the envy of our fellow hunters like the new girl on the block but many of them get the job done just as effectively.
We all have our favorites. I am now getting a 260 to play with for a while.
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,172
- 5,631
I have both the 270 WSM and the 7 mm WSM. If I could only buy one, it would be the 7 mm on the basis of better selection of bullets. As has already been said, you will need to be a handloader with this cartridge. On the other hand, you will not be under gunned with a 270 WSM for hunting most game in NA.
Antelope_Sniper
Handloader
- Jan 25, 2008
- 2,618
- 0
270fan, you summed it up very nicely.
My (gasp) .270 win shoots under .5 moa, and has exited every mule deer I've ever shot with it. Both the .270 and 7mm short mag have bullets in the 130 to 150gr range, and that would probably account for 90% of what you would do with either rifle. If you want to really wreck the day of some prarrie dogs, the .277 90gr sierra HP are a lot of fun. If you like the heavy 175gr Partition, you could go with the 7mm flavor.
My (gasp) .270 win shoots under .5 moa, and has exited every mule deer I've ever shot with it. Both the .270 and 7mm short mag have bullets in the 130 to 150gr range, and that would probably account for 90% of what you would do with either rifle. If you want to really wreck the day of some prarrie dogs, the .277 90gr sierra HP are a lot of fun. If you like the heavy 175gr Partition, you could go with the 7mm flavor.
My 2cents and that all it worth ,Two of my boys have WSM a 270 & 300 bough shoot well and the feeding after some work is ok. But if I buy a 7mm it will be the 7mm sarum the brass in a year will be no harder to find then the 7mm WSM and no feeding problems with the one I had a chance to shoot.
Alan
Alan
Pacer97 brings up an interesting point. I know of a few WSM rifles that seem to suffer from poor feeding problems. Has anyone else had feeding problems with this these rounds? I just did a google search for "wsm feeding problem" it seems there is a little reading to be done there.
Big Squeeze
Handloader
- May 29, 2007
- 828
- 0
And the debate continues and will always continue!!.... IMO, `Ol Elmer and Jack were both right. You have to place the shot into the vitals regardless of caliber and use the right bullet for the game being hunted.............The maximum bullet weight difference between the two is only 15 to 25 gr. The 270 WSM would have the advantage on the lighter end (smaller game/varmits etc.), while the 7mmWSM would have a slight advantage on the heavier end. The 270WSM if I`m not mistaken, is the flatter shooter, but not by much. Realistically, I`d take either on any deer, elk or moose hunt.............Because proper bullet selection is more important, any difference that one would have over the other is trivial IMO!............... With proper bullet selection and shot placement, there is no reason to believe that a 7mm WSM would do anything better in the field than a 270WSM and visa versa!..........Flip a coin!!
Is their such a thing as a better cailber. If they would brought out the 7mm before the 300 and the 270 would that have helped its popularity. I would rather have the 270 and if I wanted some thing bigger I would go for the 300 thats why I think its loosing ground.
If I had a to choose between the two, I would take the 7mm. One thing that I have not seen posted yet is barrel life. I am sure you would have to be more careful with the 270 then the 7 at the range. Also, the fact that you can run a 175+ grain bullet will help slow things down. +1 for bullet selection for the 7 as well.
However, I like my 7mm Rem Mag. It stinks trying to find ammo for new or rare chambers on a hunting trip if your bags are lost by an airport. I even have had a hard time finding 25-06 rounds at times. If a store has ammo on the shelf, there is going to be 243win, 30-06, and a good chance that there will be 7mm Reg Mag.
However, I like my 7mm Rem Mag. It stinks trying to find ammo for new or rare chambers on a hunting trip if your bags are lost by an airport. I even have had a hard time finding 25-06 rounds at times. If a store has ammo on the shelf, there is going to be 243win, 30-06, and a good chance that there will be 7mm Reg Mag.
2ndtimer
Handloader
- Sep 26, 2004
- 269
- 11
I have .270WSM, and I really like it. I think the reason it is more popular than the 7mmWSM is that it was something different when it came out. As for the 7mm, you already had the 7mm Remington Magnum and the 7mm SAUM as well as the 7mm Weatherby, not to mention the 7mm Mauser, the 7mm-08, and the .280 Rem. In the .270, all you had was a few million of Jack O'Connor's favorite and a couple of dozen .270 Weatherby's.
Fans of the .270 bullet just didn't have many options, so when the .270WSM was introduced, it covered a LOT of ground. A short action .270 that, properly handloaded, could match the 7mm-08 ballistics and mildness of recoil, but could also buck up and nip at the heels of the legendary 7mm Remington Magnum. IMO, that is why the .270 WSM blew the doors off the 7mm WSM (and the 7mm SAUM). And that is why I still prefer the .270WSM. And anyone who thinks that the .007 difference in bullet diameter is significant or that the 175 gr 7mm bullet is way ahead of a 160 gr Nosler Partition in .270 caliber, needs to go check out some dead animals. And then try to guess which was shot with which.
Fans of the .270 bullet just didn't have many options, so when the .270WSM was introduced, it covered a LOT of ground. A short action .270 that, properly handloaded, could match the 7mm-08 ballistics and mildness of recoil, but could also buck up and nip at the heels of the legendary 7mm Remington Magnum. IMO, that is why the .270 WSM blew the doors off the 7mm WSM (and the 7mm SAUM). And that is why I still prefer the .270WSM. And anyone who thinks that the .007 difference in bullet diameter is significant or that the 175 gr 7mm bullet is way ahead of a 160 gr Nosler Partition in .270 caliber, needs to go check out some dead animals. And then try to guess which was shot with which.
- Nov 4, 2004
- 24,900
- 7,795
Good points 2ndtimer.
I think you nailed it. :grin:
The 7mm has the advantage of more bullet offerings.
JD338
I think you nailed it. :grin:
The 7mm has the advantage of more bullet offerings.
JD338
rumshooter
Beginner
- Apr 30, 2005
- 26
- 0
Charlie, you are a man after my own heart. As the debate rages on over a topic that has only one good answer, which does the individual prefer, I grew up getting "the .270 will do everything better than anything" shoved down my throat. One thing I did not see in this forum was the fact that a smaller diameter bullet will typically be longer. With all things being equal, the heavy-for-caliber bullets require deeper seating thus diminishing powder capacity. I have been loading a 150 gr. Scirocco in my wife's M70 featherweight with just over .5 MOA day-in and day-out, but the 160 A/B had to be seated too deep for my liking. Incidentally, I have carried this gun when elk hunting the ridiculously rough country necessary after the "Primitive Weapons" season, and I must say it is a delight to shoot and carry. To coin a phrase, "It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee", and neither of us has ever had a feeding problem, having ran literally hundreds of rounds through it. The bottom line is that I just prefer something that everyone else does not have.
2ndtimer":3shbjdlf said:
You may have a point but I don't agree with you. In my view the main reason that the 7mm WSM did not catch on was that it was introduced late after it was recalled!
I like the 7mm bullets better. Most 7mm rifles have faster twist than the .270's and therefore superior BC's when wanted. The 7mm VLD's make me wish all my .270's were 7mm's.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,184
- 2,822
It took me a while to warm up to the 7mm rem mag but now I will not part with it. Great diameter period.
