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. Survival. There are guys taking elk at 600 yards with 260 and 6.5 Creedmoor. Generally speaking, the higher the muzzle energy, the higher the stopping power. JavaScript is disabled. The 7mm bullet family is an outstanding ballistic performer at the bullet weights used for most game and are still shootable without a brake for most people. I grew up in what we used to call the magnum craze, the late 1950s and on through the 60s when every new cartridge wore a belt and was called a “magnum.” Some were flops, but this era produced some of our most popular cartridges, including the 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum. Which succeed and which fail is really up to you, and let’s hope the cream rises to the top. If you read my post, what I said was that a 26" barrel is not better than a 24" barrel for carrying and handling. Down range a 7-08 is right with that 270 wsm. Yes the factory availability sucks but a the 7wsm is a handloaders dream. The choice of bullets is the main reason for sure. 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. All the accuracy you can get is useful in the plains and mountains, which is where I think the .270 WSM fits best. 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. The last of these cartridges, the .325 WSM, was introduced in 2005. But there’s something else. It's defeating to purpose. in bullet weight on the heavy side, and in reality the veloicity is the same all things equel.. It is more available than the .270 Weatherby Magnum has ever been. Is this true? With equal weight bullets trajectories aren't significantly different until about 4-500 yds. I don't think you can make an argument that it is. On a lot of animals it doesn’t matter, but on larger game it makes a difference, and I’ve seen it in the field. Of course, this would only matter if you were going to use it for game bigger than deer-sized. 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. Just curious why you feel it is worthless? In all honesty I think if you are going to kep the rifle stock, as in in factory chamber and all, I would recommend the 300 win mag. 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 some economical options out there for something new in 24" though (savage, vanguard, tikka, etc..). Conventional wisdom suggests a fast .30, a good choice. Me, I’m a .270 nut and a .30-caliber freak. 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. IMO the 7 really shines in the 160 grain weight. And he can get a WSM in a nice, light package if that's what he wants. IMO the 270 wsm offers you nothing in the performance potential department compared to a 7mm mag. .270 versus 7mm Rem Mag. Like its siblings, the .270 WSM has gained a steady following for a variety of reasons. It may not display this or other websites correctly. Most hunters use fast .30s, a few use 7mms. 300 WSM vs 300 Win Mag. it was the most budget rifle they had when they brought out the wsm line and it has been easily turned into a tack driver with some minor and free adjustments. As a rule of thumb, when it comes to hunting, muzzle energy is what many hunters look at when deciding on what caliber of firearm / ammunition to select. Of them all, the .270 WSM is the one I like best. In the .270 Winchester velocity is 2940 fps for 2685 foot-pounds of energy. It doesn’t break new ballistic ground; technically the 65-year-old .270 Weatherby Magnum is just as fast. My favorite among all the new magnums is the .270 WSM. True .270 WSM Winchester Short Magnum and 7mm-08 Remington ballistics information can vary widely from the displayed information, and it is important to understand that the particular characteristics of a given round can make a substantive difference in its true performance. Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3. That being said I would still choose the 7mm over the 270 all else being equal. Lbs.) Can't believe it isn't available from the factory yet. Not enough difference to matter. I'm not badmouthing the 7mm mag., just sayin'. 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’ve used several .270 WSMs and have owned three, and while I can’t prove it I believe the on-average accuracy is superior to the .270 Winchester. If your goal is to find better access to ammo, I would definitely go with the 270wsm. I rate it as one of the very best mountain cartridges. 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 7mms are great, but they fall right in between—so I’ve never been a big 7mm fan. Pushing a 150-grain bullet to 3250 fps, the .270 WSM certainly earns the Magnum title, but at what cost? Both the .270 and 7mm mag. I took one to the Yukon for a Stone sheep, and with the sheep in the salt I hoped to use it on a grizzly.

Shantel Vansanten Couple, Gif Anime Matrix, Reve Je T'aime Signification, Reggie Begelton College Stats, Kennedy Walsh Age, Russell Westbrook Dad,