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.

 

[The Guide]

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. . .

Not an argument but a question for you. What is the difference between a .264 bullet and a .277 bullet if they are going to be about the same weight?

In each weight class, the 6.5 will have a higher BC and SD than the equivalent 270 bullet until you get above the standard twist bullet weights. If you have a custom fast twist 270 or a new cartridge designed as fast twist you can take advantage of the 165 and 170 grain .277 bullets but I don't think that is what you are looking at.

130 grain Nosler AccuBond

0.264 G1 BC 0.488 SD 0.266
0.277 G1 BC 0.435 SD 0.242

140 grain Nosler AccuBond

0.264 G1 BC 0.509 SD 0.287
0.277 G1 BC 0.496 SD 0.261

150 grain Nosler AccuBond LR

0.264 G1 BC 0.634 SD 0.327
0.277 G1 BC 0.591 SD 0.279

These bullets were chosen because they are the same weight and bullet design. The 6.5mm bullet of the same weight always has a higher Ballistic Coefficient and higher Sectional Density than the 270 bullet of the same design. What makes one bullet diameter "marginal" for elk and the other just fine? I'm honestly curious to why. I have multiple 6.5 cartridges and multiple 270 cartridges in various rifles and I don't think either one is wrong for elk when shooting sub 500 yards with standard cartridges and when using the magnum cartridges you extending your range an additional 250 yards.

Jay

 

[Lou270]

People like to draw thresholds is what makes one cartridge marginal vs another. There is not a lot of difference. Personally, I like the fact you can get 150gr accubonds, aframes, tsx, etc… in 270 vs 6.5 which tend to top out 130-140 with tougher bullets. That to me is an advantage for the 270 even in 1-10. As for 270 WSM it is marvelous cartridge. It hits with more authority to any 6.5 until you get up into the really big case 6.5s without a big jump in recoil to heavier bullets in 7mm/30 cal mags. Same with 6.8W

Lou

 

[The Guide]

People like to draw thresholds is what makes one cartridge marginal vs another. There is not a lot of difference. Personally, I like the fact you can get 150gr accubonds, aframes, tsx, etc… in 270 vs 6.5 which tend to top out 130-140 with tougher bullets. That to me is an advantage for the 270 even in 1-10. As for 270 WSM it is marvelous cartridge. It hits with more authority to any 6.5 until you get up into the really big case 6.5s without a big jump in recoil to heavier bullets in 7mm/30 cal mags. Same with 6.8W

Lou

Lou,

Can you define authority for me in a scientific manner. I have several 6.5 and 270 rifles in both standard and magnum cartridges. When using the same weight bullets I don't see any difference in sound or reaction of steel when impacted or on game when shot. In my experience with my Tikka 6.5 PRC vs my Tikka 270WSM, the 6.5 PRC has less recoil and less muzzle jump when both are shot unbraked and unsuppressed.

The difference between the 2 rifles is negligible at 500 yards with a 10 mph wind.

270WSM with Hornady Precision Hunter 145 ELDX


6.5 PRC with Hornady Match 147 ELDM


What makes one better than the other? Not much difference that I can see. Sure we could cherry pick bullets and handload to extract more velocity from either round but these are standard off the shelf factory loads for each cartridge with close to the same weight bullets that I use in my rifles with real chronograph data from a Garmin Xero.

Look forward to your reply. Just looking for real data and definitive information not I like/feel/think this thing is something.

Jay

 

[MoeFaux]

Not an argument but a question for you. What is the difference between a .264 bullet and a .277 bullet if they are going to be about the same weight?

In each weight class, the 6.5 will have a higher BC and SD than the equivalent 270 bullet until you get above the standard twist bullet weights. If you have a custom fast twist 270 or a new cartridge designed as fast twist you can take advantage of the 165 and 170 grain .277 bullets but I don't think that is what you are looking at.

BC and SD aren't what kill game. The transfer of kinetic energy into vital organs to create trauma is what kills game.

BC helps you retain that energy at range, but I (like the overwhelming majority of hunters) am not shooting at ranges long enough for energy attrition to be a factor.

SD provides a nice little boost to penetration, but it's only one of many factors in that arena. Bullet design and available energy seem far more significant influences. (If I'm wrong about that, please show some data a prove me wrong.) And penetration, of course, isn't everything, either, since some applications benefit larger frontal diameters and quicker energy dissipation.

So, Jay, I would argue that the differences between the .264 and the .277 BULLETS are kind of irrelevant, and that the real question is this: What is the difference between a 6.5 Creedmore and and 270 WSM. And the answer is simple: 423 ft lbs @ 100 yards on average. (2489 vs 2164 according to https://www.sportsmans.com/rifle-ca...lVc6AwKf-MZ1vyPvEx7qn9AX8FnZkZ7VamUIqW_X2D_HV)