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)

 

[Lou270]

Yes - there is not much difference. 100% agree. The main difference is that Hornady loads the 145 eldx to hilt for 6.5 prc. The 270 wsm can hit 3150-3200 with 150s so could get 50 fps more with 143s. As an example, hodgdon shows data up to 3200 fps with 145 eldx for 6.8W and that has 4gr less powder capacity than 270 wsm. So the 270 wsm could start with more energy. The other advantage is 10% increase in cross sectional area of the 270. Whether you look at energy transfer or only crush as your wounding the 270 will do more damage. The 6.5 prc will have the advantage of less recoil and at some point down range the higher BC will offset the faster starting velocity of the 270 wsm. Neither are significant

If you compare a different factory load - 150 ablr and 142 ablr from Nosler the 270 WSM still has 1700+ fp at 500 yards while the 6.5 prc has 1500+ fp. Both the ablr and eldx will work fine for the 500 yard shot, but the ablr will be better for close range should it pop up. You can think “fudd alert”, but bullet construction is bullet conatruction. The federal terminal ascent load shows 1600 ft-lbs for 270 wsm and 1350 ft-lbs for 6.5 prcs is another example.

Basically, to take advantage of the higher BC potential of the 6.5 you have to stick with the thinnest jacket bullets. Once a bullet “toughens up” you lose that. So for a 270 wsm the 500 yard ballistics dont change much whether using a eldx or tougher bullet but the 6.5 prc which hangs with the 270 wsm with the thin jacketed stuff falls apart when using tougher bullets. May not be important for shots you take or your personal philosophy.

Lou

 

[MoeFaux]

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
View attachment 806855

6.5 PRC with Hornady Match 147 ELDM
View attachment 806857

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

Jay - this a bit of a cherry-picked data point. I don't want to be overly critical, because I LOVE that we're discussing data instead of just opinion and anecdotes. BUT - you chose to display the point at which the higher BC bullet is finally catches up with the higher muzzle energy bullet. So, (in defense of Lou's point) the WSM has more energy for the first 500 yards, and thus will hit with more "authority" in the overwhelming majority of hunting applications.


HOWEVER - you also demonstrate a great truth that could change my opinion, and that is that even at 500 yards, this PRC has plenty enough authority to strike down the largest prey I would be chasing. (That's based on the ol' rule of thumb that you want 1500 ft lbs for elk.)

 

[Billy Goat]

I should have listened to robby and made this a meme thread.

 

[The Guide]

Jay - this a bit of a cherry-picked data point. I don't want to be overly critical, because I LOVE that we're discussing data instead of just opinion and anecdotes. BUT - you chose to display the point at which the higher BC bullet is finally catches up with the higher muzzle energy bullet. So, (in defense of Lou's point) the WSM has more energy for the first 500 yards, and thus will hit with more "authority" in the overwhelming majority of hunting applications.


HOWEVER - you also demonstrate a great truth that could change my opinion, and that is that even at 500 yards, this PRC has plenty enough authority to strike down the largest prey I would be chasing. (That's based on the ol' rule of thumb that you want 1500 ft lbs for elk.)

I only picked a distance that should be the real world maximum for most people shooting at game and showed it. The data lined up where it would. In real world data I look for velocity not energy because bullets have velocity windows not energy windows for performance. These are the bullets I actually use on game. If we stretch their legs and go until they cross the suggested 1800 fps threshold, the data looks like this.

270WSM


6.5 PRC


Now what may surprise you is that at the same velocity thresholds, they have similar remaining energy on target readings. These cartridges when using bullets of similar weight have similar readings as do most cartridges in the same case capacity (short standard case, long standard case, short magnum case, large magnum case).

Jay

 

[35WhelenAI]

Good thread! Keep in mind energy is not what it was made out to be decades and decades ago. Energy sold a lot of rifles, however velocity based expansion threshold and bullet performance trump energy each time.

I'd keep discussing velocity at the target (with a few hundred fps margin of positive error factored in) with desired bullet, and if those parameters are met, most of it then comes down to preference.

 

[The Guide]

Yes - there is not much difference. 100% agree. The main difference is that Hornady loads the 145 eldx to hilt for 6.5 prc. The 270 wsm can hit 3150-3200 with 150s so could get 50 fps more with 143s. As an example, hodgdon shows data up to 3200 fps with 145 eldx for 6.8W and that has 4gr less powder capacity than 270 wsm. So the 270 wsm could start with more energy. The other advantage is 10% increase in cross sectional area of the 270. Whether you look at energy transfer or only crush as your wounding the 270 will do more damage. The 6.5 prc will have the advantage of less recoil and at some point down range the higher BC will offset the faster starting velocity of the 270 wsm. Neither are significant

If you compare a different factory load - 150 ablr and 142 ablr from Nosler the 270 WSM still has 1700+ fp at 500 yards while the 6.5 prc has 1500+ fp. Both the ablr and eldx will work fine for the 500 yard shot, but the ablr will be better for close range should it pop up. You can think “fudd alert”, but bullet construction is bullet conatruction. The federal terminal ascent load shows 1600 ft-lbs for 270 wsm and 1350 ft-lbs for 6.5 prcs is another example.

Basically, to take advantage of the higher BC potential of the 6.5 you have to stick with the thinnest jacket bullets. Once a bullet “toughens up” you lose that. So for a 270 wsm the 500 yard ballistics dont change much whether using a eldx or tougher bullet but the 6.5 prc which hangs with the 270 wsm with the thin jacketed stuff falls apart when using tougher bullets. May not be important for shots you take or your personal philosophy.

Lou

If you use the same weight bullets vs the same weight bullets you will get a much closer spread for either cartridge it doesn't take much distance before the smaller diameter lower velocity but higher BC bullet is neck and neck with the larger round. I don't personally have loads for the 150 ABLR in either cartridge so all I can give on is theory using Nosler AccuBond LR loading data which is subjective at best. I will use numbers from their website using the velocity from their "most accurate powder and load" as stated.

I'll build those profiles using the 150 ABLR in the 270WSM and the 6.5 PRC load information and reply back later.

Jay

 

[Lou270]

If you use the same weight bullets vs the same weight bullets you will get a much closer spread for either cartridge it doesn't take much distance before the smaller diameter lower velocity but higher BC bullet is neck and neck with the larger round. I don't personally have loads for the 150 ABLR in either cartridge so all I can give on is theory using Nosler AccuBond LR loading data which is subjective at best. I will use numbers from their website using the velocity from their "most accurate powder and load" as stated.

I'll build those profiles using the 150 ABLR in the 270WSM and the 6.5 PRC load information and reply back later.

Jay

I was quoting the Nosler factory load for each not a handload. The fastest 270 wsm load is 3198 fps out of 24” barrel with 150. The fasted 6.5 prc 150 load is 3077 fps out of 26” barrel. If you select the most accurate load tested it happens to be slowest for 270 wsm and fastest for 6.5 prc

Lou

 

[roadrunner]

Good thread! Keep in mind energy is not what it was made out to be decades and decades ago. Energy sold a lot of rifles, however velocity based expansion threshold and bullet performance trump energy each time.

I'd keep discussing velocity at the target (with a few hundred fps margin of positive error factored in) with desired bullet, and if those parameters are met, most of it then comes down to preference.

The way the bullet in flight conserves its energy is what gives you that velocity based expansion. Neither one trumps the other. Never has and never will.

We don't think in terms of energy because we can't quantify it in terms that makes sense to us. We perceive action/reaction or cause and effect.

We live in a 3-D world, but we see in a 2-D world. Energy is 3-D. Velocity is 2-D.

 

[The Guide]

I was quoting the Nosler factory load for each not a handload. The fastest 270 wsm load is 3198 fps out of 24” barrel with 150. The fasted 6.5 prc 150 load is 3077 fps out of 26” barrel. If you select the most accurate load tested it happens to be slowest for 270 wsm and fastest for 6.5 prc

Lou

Not sure how to make it a fair comparison unless we use the factory loads for 140 AccuBond in both cartridges.

Jay

 

[KenLee]

Not sure how to make it a fair comparison unless we use the factory loads for 140 AccuBond in both cartridges.

Jay

If you compare Hornady published #s for factory 143 gr ELDX 6.5prc to 145 gr 270wsm ELDX, the wsm is a hair better to 500 yards. I've shot the same plain Jane x-bolts side by side in 270wsm and 6.5prc and couldn't tell any difference in recoil or muzzle jump. Only difference in the rifles was the prc had an inch longer barrel.

 

[Lou270]

Not sure how to make it a fair comparison unless we use the factory loads for 140 AccuBond in both cartridges.

Jay

Jay - ha yep. I think the 270 wsm will be bit ahead in that case as well. Tough to get apples to apples. I think the original 6.5 prc eldx to 270 wsm 145 eldx shows the 6.5 prc in the best light and what the cartridge is great at. Giving “next step up” down range ballistics with less recoil.

Lou

 

[MoeFaux]

The way the bullet in flight conserves its energy is what gives you that velocity based expansion. Neither one trumps the other. Never has and never will.

We don't think in terms of energy because we can't quantify it in terms that makes sense to us. We perceive action/reaction or cause and effect.

We live in a 3-D world, but we see in a 2-D world. Energy is 3-D. Velocity is 2-D.

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.

 

[35WhelenAI]

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.