Author Topic: Which one,.270wsm or 7mm wsm (Read 2385 times)

Suds1957 · « **on:** November 19, 2005, 02:16:16 PM »

I'm looking at buying the Savage 11f in either .270wsm or 7mmwsm and can't decide witch one!!!! So,you guys have helped me in the past,and i'm asking again.....I'm planning on trying to reload the new round,I know the 7mm has more bullet options,but scared the 7 might be hard to buy factory ammo for in the future..it doesn't seem to be as well received as the .270wsm.
Also, what are you guys hunting experiences with these two cal's. pro's and con's. Anything will help......

poncaguy · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2005, 02:45:01 PM »

270WSM....check out shortmag.com

Lawdog · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2005, 12:10:33 PM »

Quote from: poncaguy

270WSM....check out shortmag.com

You mean ShortMag.org? http://www.shortmags.org/shortmags/smclass.htm Yeah the .270 WSM is outselling the 7mm WSM but it is far from dead. Ammo will be around and so will reloading components. Personally I like the 7mm WSM over the .270 WSM. If I hadn't been offered a great deal on my .270 WSM Savage I would have gotten the 7mm. Lawdog

poncaguy · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2005, 12:15:27 PM »

sorry about that address, I see no need for more than a 270 WSM for most of our game, and mine is very accurate ( Super Shadow). But , I have 2 45-70's and a 460 S&W Encore, so................ :eek:

Suds1957 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2005, 02:33:04 PM »

I went to the Shortmag site,and after reading the info,am leaning towards the 270wsm. Sounds as if might be a little easier for a reloader with not a whole bunch of experience like me......thanks for the help guys.

nomosendero · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2005, 02:54:45 PM »

If you have normal uses, the 270 will do great, especially if you also have a bigger round. However, if you decide to do long range paper punching in
the future & longer range hunting, the 7mm has ballistically superior
bullets.

Ramrod · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2005, 03:39:33 PM »

Quote

Witch one,.270wsm or 7mm wsm

Why not just flip a coin? I doubt there is a critter on earth that will know the difference when hit with one or the other. And I doubt anyone of us here are smart enough to know which one, if any, will still be around 10 or 20 years from now. But If you are a regular reader of the modern gun rags, it won't matter to you. Just get the one with the highest foot-pounds of energy. :-D I'll let you in on what seems to be a little known secret. The .270 Win, and the 7mm Rem mag have been around for a more than a few years, and will still be here after we are both dead. The two you just mentioned will not.

Lawdog · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2005, 09:51:52 AM »

Ramrod,

Quote

The .270 Win, and the 7mm Rem mag have been around for a more than a few years, and will still be here after we are both dead. The two you just mentioned will not.

Actually with the way the WSM's ARE selling, they will be around LONG after anyone on this forum or any other forum is dead, buried and forgotten. And that includes the 7mm WSM(the slowest seller of the WSM line). Purchaser's don't need to worry about any of the WSM(and WSSM's) disappearing anytime soon. Lawdog

Ramrod · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2005, 01:20:30 PM »

Hey, Lawdog, how about showing us where to find those sales figures you are so sure about. I would like to compare them to the sales of the older rounds.

nomosendero · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2005, 04:08:51 PM »

Ramrod

What you are saying is a little confusing. :? You say on the one hand that
you doubt that any of us are smart enough to know which of these rounds
will be around 10-20 years if any & then you say that both rounds (s. mags) will be dead before we are. Does that mean that only you know. Does that include the older members that may be 60 or more?

No, quite frankly, I know that the 270WSM is extremely successful & the 7
WSM is slowly gaining acceptance among the long range crowd & others.
The 270 & 7RM are great & I bet the poster already knows that, but that
was not his question.

roper · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2005, 05:11:06 PM »

I own too many rifle to fall into the trap of comparing calibers and as to which will be around in 20yrs who really knows kind of funny but I'm play around with a new custom in 264 mag and 284. I remember back about 20yrs or so heard wouldn't be anymore 284 brass or would just be made on a limited run so stocked up for acouple 6x284 that I was shooting can walk into Sportmans Warehouse and buy win 284 brass today.

Ramrod · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2005, 02:11:06 AM »

Quote from: nomosendero

Ramrod

What you are saying is a little confusing. :? You say on the one hand that
you doubt that any of us are smart enough to know which of these rounds
will be around 10-20 years if any & then you say that both rounds (s. mags) will be dead before we are. Does that mean that only you know. Does that include the older members that may be 60 or more?

No, quite frankly, I know that the 270WSM is extremely successful & the 7
WSM is slowly gaining acceptance among the long range crowd & others.
The 270 & 7RM are great & I bet the poster already knows that, but that
was not his question.

Actually, my first statement is a shorter range forcast, since these two rounds are competing with each other, along with the older rounds. One or the other will probably go away fast.
The second statement is more of a longetivity thing, the .270 Win has been around for 70 years, the 7mm Rem Mag, over 40. Some rounds become classics, most don't. Not many people believe there is anything special about these Short Mags, compared to what is already tried and true.
Of the type of folks that buy the newest wiz-bang numbers, many will drop them quickly in the future, when some newer wiz-bang comes along.

Lawdog · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:13:56 AM »

Quote from: Ramrod

Hey, Lawdog, how about showing us where to find those sales figures you are so sure about. I would like to compare them to the sales of the older rounds.

Turn about is fair play. How about you posting the sales figures for all the older cartridges? It's too bad that some hunters/shooters out there dont want to believe that the firearms industry cant come up with anything new or improved, yet its done all the time. The newer short, fat cartridges have proven themselves or the firearms manufactures would have dropped them from their lines. If you want proof of this just take a look at the RSAUM line. Its being dropped from more and more from every manufactures line all because they are not selling. The funny part about sales is one can never tell. Point of fact is that when Winchester first introduced the 7mm and .270 WSM, everyone said the 7mm WSM would outsell the .270 WSM. Yet at this point in time the .270 WSM is outselling the 7mm WSM. Go figure. Lawdog

nomosendero · « **Reply #13 on:** November 22, 2005, 05:39:09 PM »

I guess that I am too much of a numbers guy! Especially when you look at
270WSM ammo sales, rifle sales & favorable press with a constant addition of new factory rounds, I fail to see logic in thinking the 270WSM
would be in trouble, short term or long term.

2ndtimer · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:49:12 PM »

I realize that many shooters are extremely conservative, but comments like Ramrod's are getting old. If the Winchester short mags are doomed to soon extinction, then why are more and more factory loads being introduced each year? So that the manufacturers can sell them at a loss as discontinued? And more and more manufacturers are chambering rifles for them, too. Such as Remington in their new SPS. ( One might wonder why "Big Green" chose the .270WSM and .300WSM instead of their own 7SAUM, and 300SAUM, maybe because the SAUM's are on their way out?) I wish manufacturers would list sales by caliber of their products. I am quite confident that the .270WSM and .300WSM are doing very well, sales-wise. As for Ramrod like comments about the short mags not outliving older more estblished cartridges, I am sure similar comments were made about the .308 Winchester vs. the .300 Savage, the 25-06 vs. the 257 Roberts and .250 Savage and the .223 Remington vs. the .222 Remington. Clearly the older more established cartridges easily survived the newer only slightly better cartridges in those cases, didn't they? Riigghht.....
But just to be on the safe side, I guess I better pick up another rifle in .270WSM, and a couple hundred more cases for reloading since they could be discontinued any minute now.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2005, 02:23:48 AM »

I've gotta say that .270 WSM has my vote.
It is the most interesting modern cartridge and would be my choice if I was buying a rifle chambered for a recently developed round.
It offers definite advantages while a 7mm Rem Mag isn't that much of an encumberance if you want more power in a 7mm.

Squeeze · « **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2005, 05:05:31 AM »

I guess to put this in a different perspective, the WSM cartridges
are often today's young shooter's choice, and when they are
old and crusty, like me, this will be their "Classics". But even
as an old and crusty shooter, with many of the "classics", one would
get my 300 WSM, from me, when they pry it from my cold dead
fingers :-D

As for the original posters question, I will suggest the 270 WSM.
One of the carpenters, that worked on my new home, was telling
me about the performance of his M70 270 WSM, on a recent elk
hunt. He is a whitetail hunter, here in Wisconsin, that wanted
a rifle that could be used on the occasional western elk hunt, and
he settled on this choice. He shot several elk, including his bull,
and he helped put down another hunter's bull that had been
wounded with a 7mm RM. He said the old guy that shot the
7mm RM made a poor shot, excused by failing eye sight, and
the old guy asked for a finishing shot, by this 270 WSM shooter.
The elk dropped with the additional hit. Now this isn't a
story about poor 7MM RM performance, but rather the adequate
performance, on elk, by the 270 WSM. If I didn't already have
a number of "classics", that overlap the 270 WSM performance,
I would be buying a 270 WSM as a "general purpose" non
dangerous big game rifle. This one just makes good sense.
And with the increasing support by ammo manufacturers,
this "good sense" choice gets even stronger.

Sorry Ramrod, but I strongly disagree with your opinion, that
the WSM won't last in the market place. But more importantly,
than either your or my opinion on the matter, is the fact that
many shooters are voting with their wallets, and the WSM
line of cartridges, is making money for the rifle manufacturers.
They are here to stay. I do appreciate that Winchester went
with the 25 WSSM, instead of a 25 WSM. Since I am a big .25-06 Rem
fan, this move saved me a lot of money :-D I would have had
to buy at least one 25 WSM, but I don't need any 25 WSSMs!
I am not counting the WSSM line out, just yet, but if I had
to pick an endangered species out of the new offerings, this
would be my first choice.

Squeeze

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2005, 03:49:20 PM »

Even Kenny Jarrett says the WSM's are nothing but a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors crap, and if he says that then it means something because he makes some of the most accurate rifles out there.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2005, 03:52:00 PM »

Oh, and Squeeze, I can find lots of ''adequate performance stories'' about shooters using 270's and 308's. Hell, there are even some people who kill elk with 243's with just one shot.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2005, 05:59:09 PM »

Quote from: Captain_Obvious

Even Kenny Jarrett says the WSM's are nothing but a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors crap, and if he says that then it means something because he makes some of the most accurate rifles out there.

Quote from: Captain_Obvious

Oh, and Squeeze, I can find lots of ''adequate performance stories'' about shooters using 270's and 308's. Hell, there are even some people who kill elk with 243's with just one shot.

Ahhh, what I LOVE to see on such threads....a diplomat! :roll:
So what you're saying is that neither you or Kenny(who ever he is?) would buy any WSMs. :|
Just so long as we understand what your saying.
To be blunt I'd be more likely to buy a 7x57, 6.5x55, 9.3x62 or even an old Martini Enfield .303 than a 270 WSM: cheaper and lots of classic coolness.

But the appeal of the 270 WSM still stands, at least for me. :-)
So howsabout we stay positive. :wink:

2ndtimer · « **Reply #20 on:** November 23, 2005, 07:22:18 PM »

Quote from: Captain_Obvious

Even Kenny Jarrett says the WSM's are nothing but a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors crap, and if he says that then it means something because he makes some of the most accurate rifles out there.

Interesting, if indeed, Kenny Jarrett ever really said that. Especially since the Distinguished Mr. Jarrett writes glowingly about the .280 Rem. Ackley Improved in the Nosler No. 4 Loading Manual (Page 274, if you want to check) and the .270WSM is a virtual ballistic twin with the 140 gr bullet, except of course for the superior sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the .277 140 gr bullet. I quote: "Of all the cartridges we chamber for, the .280 Improved strikes the perfect balance between maximum velocity and extreme accuracy." Sure sounds like the .270WSM to me. The biggest difference between them is that factory ammo is available in the short magnums. NOT so obvious, eh, Captain?

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2005, 04:53:05 AM »

Ok, how about this: my uncle buys all of his hunting rifles from Kenny Jarrett. He owns two of the signature series rifles. I don't know where you get the idea that the 270 WSM strikes a perfect balance between accuracy and velocity, seeing as how the 270 Weatherby Magnum is not only faster, but is just as accurate. My Ruger NO. 1 in 270 Weatherby Mag chronographs 3400 fps with a 140 grain bullet, and shoots groups under an inch. Factory ballistic figures for the 270 Weatherby also show that it is ballistically superior.

So much for maximum velocity and extreme accuracy!

2ndtimer · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2005, 05:36:23 AM »

Obviously, subtlety is lost on you, Captain. My point was that your reference to Kenny Jarrett was somewhat ironic in that he has trumpeted the .280 AI in print, which is very close ballistically to the .270 and 7mm WSM, (if anything the short mags are ahead of the .280 AI), while you claim he has denigrated the short magnums. As for the .270 Weatherby, I would be curious to see just how much faster it would be than the .270WSM if the short mag sported a 26 inch barrel, as do most Weatherbys. I grant you, the Weatherby should still be faster, as it has greater case capacity, but I don't think it is worth paying $2 per round for factory ammo, or $1 per case for brass for a measly 100 fps difference. I also much prefer the handling characteristics of the short action with a 24" barrel. But if you don't mind the added cost, more power to you.
Of course, similar statements could be made comparing the .standard .270 Winchester to the .270WSM, as a standard .270 Win with a 26" barrel can get pretty close to the .270WSM with some loads. But again, I don't care for the handling qualities of a long action rifle with a 26" tube, and most .270 Winchesters come standard with a 22" barrel.
But back to the original thread, I would still opt for the .270WSM vs. the 7mmWSM, due to the greater availability of factory ammo, and personal preference. If you plan on hunting anything that the .270WSM is too light for, stepping up to the 7mmWSM probably won't be big enough, either.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #23 on:** November 24, 2005, 08:01:55 AM »

Oh, yeah, wow, it comes close to the performance of another round! That's always a sure sign that it has an edge! Maybe people simply like .270 rounds in general. Suppose, hypothetically the 270 Weatherby Magnum suddenly became available in common and affordable rifles, and premium grade ammo for it cost the same as, say, Ultra Mag ammo, I suspect it would eat the WSM for breakfast. Maybe this is partly due to the fact that velocity sells.

The 7mm Remington Magnum is a better all-around choice than the 270 WSM, primarily because it is more versatile and packs more punch, particularly when properly reloaded. It also outperforms the 7mm WSM with proper load selection. In fact, for a reloader, this is a far more practical and logical choice than the 7mm STW and 7mm Ultra Mag, seeing as how it can come close to their performance with less powder. It is more efficient.

As for the 270 Winchester and 270 WSM, there was a time when the 270 Winchester was loaded to 3160 fps MV with a 130 grain bullet. I guess we wouldn't really need a 270 WSM, or Weatherby for that matter, if this were still the case.

Miss Cleo, the Tarot Lady, and the Pet Psychic also had "testimonials' so as far as I'm concerned, testimonials don't hold much water.

myronman3 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2005, 08:19:18 AM »

well everyone else has stunk up the room with their opinion, so i might as well, too.

if i were going to get one or the other, i would go with the 7mm over the 270 (and i am a 270 win fan). the reason is simple-better bullet selection for the 7mm. that should settle it for you.

all that being said, my 270 winchester with 150 grain noslers @ 2900 fps is all i need. i am of mind that all these short action mags are just a gimmick. get out your chrono's, do some actual testing yourselves instead of reading charts. you will most likely have your eyes opened.

whatever you shoot, enjoy it. and if you do that, who really cares what caliber you shoot. the animals arent likely to know the difference.

nomosendero · « **Reply #25 on:** November 24, 2005, 09:24:23 AM »

I also have regular length magnums that I like better than the short mag.
especially in 30 cal. But, that was not the question that was asked. Hence,
the answer I gave.

roper · « **Reply #26 on:** November 24, 2005, 01:19:37 PM »

Since I have owned three 300wsm I feel like I came make an honest comment my latest is a custom 300wsm action squared, new stock, barrel trigger. Would I do another "NO" all three have had there moments and I think the 270wsm may be the answer. There is a spike in pressure that I've never seen in another mag type round I think the concept of the round is good. I've played with more type powders and primers than I have another rifle I own or have own. I don't want to add fuel for the guys who don't like the wsm round but I'm going to have the 300wsm rebarreled to a 270wsm if that doesn't work I'll do a 6.5wsm some combination has to be the right one. The gunsmith who built this rifle has done most of mine for the last 12yrs does good work and does my BR rifles. Just my .02

kenscot · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2005, 03:03:21 PM »

Well I guess I will have to vote for the 270WSM since a Browning Medallion just followed me home from gander mountain.
I was having a tough time deciding between this and the 300 WSM . I already have 7 rem mag and 7mm-08 figured I do not need an in between 7 and if I want a 30 or larger magnum I am going to go for the full sized versions.

Captain_Obvious · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2005, 04:15:44 PM »

Out of all the short magnums, the 270 WSM does offer the greatest practical utility. It is probably a slightly more suitable big game cartridge than the 6.5mm magnum. It does have somewhat of a ballistic edge over the standard 270, but not over the 270 Weatherby Magnum. The 7mm Remington Magnum is superior because of its greater selection of hunting bullets and diversity of loads, but also because it is bigger.

Out of all the 300 magnums, the 300 Winchester Magnum is the most practical, because not only do the bigger .300's not kill larger game than the 300 Winchester, but the 300 Winchester Magnum is the most comforable to shoot, the most readily available, and the most versatile.

kombi1976 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2005, 07:38:28 PM »

Quote from: Captain_Obvious

Out of all the short magnums, the 270 WSM does offer the greatest practical utility. It is probably a slightly more suitable big game cartridge than the 6.5mm magnum. It does have somewhat of a ballistic edge over the standard 270, but not over the 270 Weatherby Magnum.

Actually, Cap'um, you just made me think of something that hadn't struck me before.
Someone else may've said it but possibly not.
The 270 Win is a popular cartridge and have encouraged a following of .277 cal.
What the 270 WSM offers is 2 fold:

a) more power than the 270 Win(however negligible that may be)
b) in a short action

I think the 2 aspects combined are more important than seperate.
While it makes little difference to me it has to be granted that plenty of folks like the idea of a short action.
To get the grunt(and more!) of a popular cartridge and to be able to have it in a short action is quite significant, something that was hitherto unavailable in the this cal.
So even if you're loading to 270 Win specs you're still getting something different.