What's wrong with 270 WSM?

[roadrunner]

Why the transition to the 7 WSM?

The ability to shoot a 160 gr bullet if I chose to. I also load it a little hotter to reach out and tap something if need to.

I always have the 270 as a backup. The last oryx I killed in NM was with the 270.

 

[MoeFaux]

Understood, I'm curious though, why the desire to shoot a magnum if 400 yards is the limit?

It's for the punch, not for the range.

Personalities I trust (like Ron Spomer, for example) call the 6.5 marginal for elk, and I would rather have some buffer than be on a margin.

Invariably, proponents of the smaller calibers will cry "energy doesn't matter - it's all about shot placement!" while pointing to success stories of 6 CM and 223, but I find that argument deeply flawed. Yes, shot placement can make up for a lack of energy, but that requires an opportunity for ideal shot placement. I can kill a moose or a grizzly with my 22 lr with strategic shot placement, but that doesn't make it a wise or ethical choice because of how extremely it limits my shot opportunities.

I'd prefer to carry enough power to be confident in my lethality from nearly any angle short of the "Texas heart shot". Of course, you can carry that argument to the extreme and suggest that I should carry a 460 Weatherby every time I enter the woods, but we all know there's a happy medium between the extremes. I'd rather err slightly to the side of more than enough gun rather than ever be caught with not quite enough to get the job done.

Am I foolishly entrenched in the old school mentality of Bigger Bores for Bigger Game? Feel free to try to convince me. . .

 

[WKR]

It's for the punch, not for the range.

Personalities I trust (like Ron Spomer, for example) call the 6.5 marginal for elk, and I would rather have some buffer than be on a margin.

Invariably, proponents of the smaller calibers will cry "energy doesn't matter - it's all about shot placement!" while pointing to success stories of 6 CM and 223, but I find that argument deeply flawed. Yes, shot placement can make up for a lack of energy, but that requires an opportunity for ideal shot placement. I can kill a moose or a grizzly with my 22 lr with strategic shot placement, but that doesn't make it a wise or ethical choice because of how extremely it limits my shot opportunities.

I'd prefer to carry enough power to be confident in my lethality from nearly any angle short of the "Texas heart shot". Of course, you can carry that argument to the extreme and suggest that I should carry a 460 Weatherby every time I enter the woods, but we all know there's a happy medium between the extremes. I'd rather err slightly to the side of more than enough gun rather than ever be caught with not quite enough to get the job done.

Am I foolishly entrenched in the old school mentality of Bigger Bores for Bigger Game? Feel free to try to convince me. . .

I'm not the guy to tell people what to shoot or why. Just curious of the reasons behind why people choose what they choose.