What's wrong with 270 WSM?

[MoeFaux]

The combination of bullet construction, amount of weight to begin, diameter, and velocity will
swing results on game dramatically to where energy isn't the deciding factor in my opinion.

With that, in full disclosure I shoot a 35 Whelen AI that has more than enough of all combining factors at the ranges I hunt to where the outcome at any angle or distance under 400 yards is not in question when I'm doing my part.

In any case, most any .277 round is a fine hunting round with a good balance of all things that do the job.

I'd like to point out that you listed the two constituent ingredients of energy (mass and velocity) as factors, then said energy isn't a factor.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I'd like to point out that you listed the two constituent ingredients of energy (mass and velocity) as factors, then said energy isn't a factor.

Lol, not the best at explaining what I'm saying today. It's very correct the larger projectile all else has equal has more energy. But that number is literally such a small contributing factor to what kills animals (if it is at all) and has been misrepresented/misunderstood for a very long time.

However, I have seen where the energy discussion leads and don't wanna contribute any more waywardness toward that rabbit hole in this nice thread about the 270 WSM.

 

[Muskykris]

I’ve got 2 270wsm’s a bolt & semi.
Happy with both, one loaded with Barnes ttsx and the other with partitions. Both plenty accurate.
Everything I’ve ever shot died fast.
If I ever feel they aren’t enough I have a 300wm with 200g partitions to back them up.

 

[Grundy53]

I mean, I don't find it difficult to think in terms of energy. E=mv^2. It's that simple. If two projectiles are moving the same speed, the one with greater mass has proportionally more energy. If two projectiles have the same mass, the one with more velocity has exponentially more energy. It's not an extra dimension - it's just high school math.

Apparently you know more than the fbi ballistic experts....

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[waspocrew]

I had a Tikka 270 WSM for a couple of years. Killed a couple of black bears with the 140 Nosler AB. Not a bad round at all. I ended up selling it when I moved out east for med school and residency.

The twist rate could be improved to accommodate heavier projectiles. Factory ammo isn't as easy to source. If you reload though, not as big of a deal breaker. Especially with ADG recently releasing 270 WSM brass.

 

[MT-nuffgun]

I mean, I don't find it difficult to think in terms of energy. E=mv^2. It's that simple. If two projectiles are moving the same speed, the one with greater mass has proportionally more energy. If two projectiles have the same mass, the one with more velocity has exponentially more energy. It's not an extra dimension - it's just high school math.

The problem with energy is that it doesnt give the whole story. It does not give any indication as to what a particular bullet does in tissue. A 30 cal 220 FMJ can impact a deer at a given range and velocity with a ton of “energy” but do little damage to tissue. A 90 grain eldx 6mm bullet could impact the same deer at the same distance with way less energy but damage internal tissue exponentially more. These are all just generalities but you get the point. There is the rabbit hole lol. Now back to how great the 270 wsm is.

 

[MoeFaux]

The problem with energy is that it doesnt give the whole story. It does not give any indication as to what a particular bullet does in tissue. A 30 cal 220 FMJ can impact a deer at a given range and velocity with a ton of “energy” but do little damage to tissue. A 90 grain eldx 6mm bullet could impact the same deer at the same distance with way less energy but damage internal tissue exponentially more. These are all just generalities but you get the point. There is the rabbit hole lol. Now back to how great the 270 wsm is.

Was there a time when people believed that energy did tell the whole story?

I ask because of this rash of comments saying "energy doesn't matter" as if people need to be talked down from an all energy all the time mindset? I've been at least casually knowledgeable about firearms and reloading since the 80's, and I've never known anyone to talk about energy as if it existed independent of bullet design or terminal ballistics.

 

[roadrunner]

The problem with energy is that it doesnt give the whole story.

What energy tells you is there is a combination of mass and velocity that together will upset the bullet. You have to have both for the bullet to do it's designed job, whatever that job is.

The other part to this whole "debate" is the principle of every action has an opposite [and equal] reaction is rarely mentioned. So if the "wallop" a bullet delivers on an animal is f(x) then there is a "wallop" of f(x)' the animal delivers back on the bullet.

That can't happen on velocity alone.

It does not give any indication as to what a particular bullet does in tissue.

Velocity doesn't either. That is merely the metric that is the most popular to equate damage because velocity is a variable we can see, aka, a crotch rocket exploding on impact going 150 mph.

A 30 cal 220 FMJ can impact a deer at a given range and velocity with a ton of “energy” but do little damage to tissue.

Now your bringing in the conservation of momentum, the thing that archery hunters are more concerned with because you want that arrow to push through.

A 90 grain eldx 6mm bullet could impact the same deer at the same distance with way less energy but damage internal tissue exponentially more. These are all just generalities but you get the point.

Does the 30 cal FMJ have a polymer tip like the EDLX does to initiate expansion? If not, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Ask yourself what would happen with that 220 gr 30 cal if it had the same bullet design and ratio of velocity to mass as the 90 gr?

If that ratio for the velocity and the 90 gr were 25:1, what would it look like terminally for the 30 cal at 25:1? I bet it would be pretty devastating.

The problem, inherent, is that incomplete comparisons keep getting made between bullet's mass's and velocities with terminal performance.

 

[roadrunner]

I mean, I don't find it difficult to think in terms of energy. E=mv^2. It's that simple. If two projectiles are moving the same speed, the one with greater mass has proportionally more energy. If two projectiles have the same mass, the one with more velocity has exponentially more energy. It's not an extra dimension - it's just high school math.

Wasn't meant to be "extra dimensional". Simply that we don't process a 3d world visually, we process it in a 2d world based on perception and cognitive learning. We know a box has three planes visually because of sensory perception (touch) but we see it as flat shapes separated by angled, vertical, and horizontal lines, not high school math but CAD 101.

We see terminal ballistics from the standpoint of velocity - the flat shapes separated by intersecting lines. The mass added in bringing full circle to the end result of the system as energy is the learned outcome of 3 planes through sensory perception.

 

[MT-nuffgun]

You are correct, I retract my statement. You need 1500 ft/lbs of energy to effectively kill an elk period. Bullet construction or velocity are moot points. Use whatever bullet you like as long as it has 1500 ft/lbs of energy at impact. Now back to the awesomeness that is the 270 wsm.