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.

 

[The Guide]

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.

I will say that when discussing bullets, we should refer to it energy potential and not energy. My reasoning I that for it to be called energy, there has to be work done. If there is no work done, then the energy transfer is minimal such as in a bullet that does not fragment or mushroom. Technically, a bullet that exits the body of an animal has not used all of its energy potential so it had wasted potential energy. That wasted potential energy could be caused by shot placement or by bullet design. Some bullets use all of their energy potential before they penetrate deep enough to effect the CNS or the vital organs. This can cause excessive blood shot meat or minimal organ damage. Energy potential shows a bullets ability to do work if the bullet design allows the work to happen (expanding type bullet) and the bullet placement is in an area where work can be done.

Jay

 

[Lou270]

I will say that when discussing bullets, we should refer to it energy potential and not energy. My reasoning I that for it to be called energy, there has to be work done. If there is no work done, then the energy transfer is minimal such as in a bullet that does not fragment or mushroom. Technically, a bullet that exits the body of an animal has not used all of its energy potential so it had wasted potential energy. That wasted potential energy could be caused by shot placement or by bullet design. Some bullets use all of their energy potential before they penetrate deep enough to effect the CNS or the vital organs. This can cause excessive blood shot meat or minimal organ damage. Energy potential shows a bullets ability to do work if the bullet design allows the work to happen (expanding type bullet) and the bullet placement is in an area where work can be done.

Jay

Yep. Energy is like charge to a battery. Does not do anything, but is directly proportional to the amount of work a bullet can do. As a bullet penetrates it loses velocity and the energy is converted to work done on the tissue (tearing and moving). A key thing people miss is that for penetration, a smaller diameter bullet uses less energy to penetrate to similar depths as a larger bullet (theoretically a bullet with 2x surface area will use 2x the energy, but not that straight forward). This is because drag (which slows the bullet) is proportional to surface area. Of course less tissue will be crushed/destroyed along the path. Since adequate penetration is a must to kill and a wider wound may not be the smaller wound may not make a difference. I think this is techical explanation on why people here think energy is some made up hoopla by fudds. Here is the other thing people don’t understand is that more energy increases wound volume not wound diameter. For ex, a 2x wider wound has destroyed 4x the amount of tissue. So a wound .25” or .5” wider may be a significant increase in tissue damage though you can hardly tell the difference just looking at how much wider a wound is. Again, whether it makes a difference or not depends on lot of things that someone with medical background would be better to comment. Apologize to OP, I couldn’t help posting on energy. If you guys want to discuss more start a different topic. I always get swarmed with memes or boos when I post anything “sciencey” about this type of stuff

Lou

 

[TaperPin]

The world functions based on what works in real life, not internet forums full of fluff, and there’s fluff of every flavor.

If a bullet construction/diameter/weight/velocity combination kills things, people will like it, if it doesn’t people won’t like it. When two buddies are out hunting, it’s no secret which rifle kills better over a variety of angles, distances, good and bad shot placement. What cracks me up are folks on both side claiming the other side is wrong, when obviously animals have been killed. Fudd lore works, it kills a lot of things every year, always has. New small bore combinations may or may not be as reliable, but they also kill things every year. Neither side even needs to argue the point - if combinations don’t work well over time guys will get bored losing wounded animals. Bullets that fall apart aren’t anything new.

 

[mlevimadden]

Pros:
Short action cartridge
Non-belted case for reloading
Flat shooting but not ridiculously overbore
Good balance of recoil and performance for most hunters

Cons:
Poor bullet selection in .277 caliber
Slow SAAMI twist rate unable to take advantage of high BC bullets
Poor factory ammo availability and selection
Crowded field of flat-shooting 277 chamberings with 270 win and 6.8W
Not popularly chambered in factory rifles

 

[TaperPin]

It’s fun watching the new crowd of small bore fans talk about their bullets being new - like a cup and core bullet is a new thing. “Our 109 gr 6mm bullets are heavy for caliber and that makes them special,” as if we haven’t watched 100 and 120 gr 25-06 bullets of all kinds killing things since Jimmy Carter was president. Sorry Little Jimmy, but we’ve been looking at bloodshot carcasses for a long time, so nothing in the current lineup of small bores is anything new - it works fine unless the angle is bad. That’s always been the case.

 

[WKR]

Pros:
Short action cartridge
Non-belted case for reloading
Flat shooting but not ridiculously overbore
Good balance of recoil and performance for most hunters

Cons:
Poor bullet selection in .277 caliber
Slow SAAMI twist rate unable to take advantage of high BC bullets
Poor factory ammo availability and selection
Crowded field of flat-shooting 277 chamberings with 270 win and 6.8W
Not popularly chambered in factory rifles

I'd add that it's only truly a short action if you only shoot factory ammo.
If you reload and want to optimize it needs a medium or long. Otherwise those bullets are going well past the donut into the powder column.

 

[mlevimadden]

I'd add that it's only truly a short action if you only shoot factory ammo.
If you reload and want to optimize it needs a medium or long. Otherwise those bullets are going well past the donut into the powder column.

Yep. Just like the 6.5 PRC is kind of a short action. But I think the 6.5PRC is a perfect fit for the tikka action.

 

[The Guide]

Yep. Energy is like charge to a battery. Does not do anything, but is directly proportional to the amount of work a bullet can do. As a bullet penetrates it loses velocity and the energy is converted to work done on the tissue (tearing and moving). A key thing people miss is that for penetration, a smaller diameter bullet uses less energy to penetrate to similar depths as a larger bullet (theoretically a bullet with 2x surface area will use 2x the energy, but not that straight forward). This is because drag (which slows the bullet) is proportional to surface area. Of course less tissue will be crushed/destroyed along the path. Since adequate penetration is a must to kill and a wider wound may not be the smaller wound may not make a difference. I think this is techical explanation on why people here think energy is some made up hoopla by fudds. Here is the other thing people don’t understand is that more energy increases wound volume not wound diameter. For ex, a 2x wider wound has destroyed 4x the amount of tissue. So a wound .25” or .5” wider may be a significant increase in tissue damage though you can hardly tell the difference just looking at how much wider a wound is. Again, whether it makes a difference or not depends on lot of things that someone with medical background would be better to comment. Apologize to OP, I couldn’t help posting on energy. If you guys want to discuss more start a different topic. I always get swarmed with memes or boos when I post anything “sciencey” about this type of stuff

Lou

To get back to our comparisons using data...

We wanted to compare 2 "tough" bullets. I have a 6.5 PRC that shoots the Factory Barnes 127 LRX loaded ammo in little tiny groups and a 270WSM that does the same with the Hornady Outfitter 130 CX loaded ammo. Given that copper bullets need to be held to a higher minimum velocity threshold, we will compare the 2 loads at where they cross the 2000 fps mark. My chronograph data has the 6.5 PRC launching the 127 at 2975 fps and the 270WSM launching the 130CX at 3145.

The 6.5 PRC crosses the velocity threshold at 516/517 yards.


The 270WSM crosses the velocity threshold at 513/514 yards.


And again we find that when using similarly constructed bullets of similar weights the difference between the cartridges is negligible. Both cartridges have the same ability to do the same work.

If the 270WSM had been released with a 9 twist barrel in a medium action that fed right, it never would have dwindled to where it is now. The same goes for the 7mm WSM and the 300WSM. The 325 WSM was never really embraced due to the lack of quality 8mm bullets for handloading and really should have been a 338 caliber in my mind.

Jay

 

[WKR]

It’s fun watching the new crowd of small bore fans talk about their bullets being new - like a cup and core bullet is a new thing. “Our 109 gr 6mm bullets are heavy for caliber and that makes them special,” as if we haven’t watched 100 and 120 gr 25-06 bullets of all kinds killing things since Jimmy Carter was president. Sorry Little Jimmy, but we’ve been looking at bloodshot carcasses for a long time, so nothing in the current lineup of small bores is anything new - it works fine unless the angle is bad. That’s always been the case.

Nothing new?
133/135 berger
134 eld-m'
138 a tip
131 match king.....
Yes I understand they are still jacketed lead core bullets but the entire profile and in some cases, tip design are in fact new.
Compare the bc of that 120 grain to the 138 a tip and tell me there is no difference.

And again, this whole argument is tired and beat to death and I don't care what other people choose to shoot, but why make statements that lack any basis?

 

[TaperPin]

Nothing new?
133/135 berger
134 eld-m'
138 a tip
131 match king.....
Yes I understand they are still jacketed lead core bullets but the entire profile and in some cases, tip design are in fact new.
Compare the bc of that 120 grain to the 138 a tip and tell me there is no difference.

And again, this whole argument is tired and beat to death and I don't care what other people choose to shoot, but why make statements that lack any basis?

You’re arguing aerodynamics and that has nothing to do with what happens when it impacts the animal, only stretching out the distance of the impact. Two different topics altogether. I think aerodynamic bullets are awesome, but that doesn’t automatically make the designs better at killing things.

I find it entertaining that both topics get jumbled together - as if only aerodynamic bullets should be used at every distance.