Finger Toes
Regular
- Location
- Yellowhead County
Or 140 grain tsx, what twist do you need for bullets longer than lead 150s or copper 140s?
.270 Win and the legendary Swede.
- Thread starter philthygeezer
- Start date
Or 140 grain tsx, what twist do you need for bullets longer than lead 150s or copper 140s?
Another long post
Warning: another long post
I have no idea, he's way past 270 now
Seriously, I know him to be very serious and meticulous about bullet selection and 130gr TSX is not a moose bullet according to Barnes... I'll ask him this weekend and get the answer.
What he noticed in the last 5 years is that 308 Win with premium bullets kill big time (really large holes, low recoil) and that the most killer bullets are Barnes TSX (never blow up, great penetration).
His conclusion is that the ultimate low-recoil moose combo is 308 Win 165 TSX!
One important thing about Barnes bullets: they seemed to be designed/optimised for military calibers like .224, .308 and .338.
Bullets is these calibers are much better designed than 6mm, .257, 6.5mm, .277 and 7mm bullets.
This means that Barnes bullets overperform in 224 Rem , 22-250, 308 Win, 300 WSW, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag and 338 Lapua Mag.
An interesting tidbit, he's absolutely fascinated by Berger bullets and spend way to much time punching paper with 155gr Berger Palma match bullets!
I know that he want to use Berger hunting VLD bullets but won't do it because of many club member have had non-successes (blown-up bullets with little penetration) with Berger bullets.
Alex
Warning: another long post
I have no idea, he's way past 270 now
Seriously, I know him to be very serious and meticulous about bullet selection and 130gr TSX is not a moose bullet according to Barnes... I'll ask him this weekend and get the answer.What he noticed in the last 5 years is that 308 Win with premium bullets kill big time (really large holes, low recoil) and that the most killer bullets are Barnes TSX (never blow up, great penetration).
His conclusion is that the ultimate low-recoil moose combo is 308 Win 165 TSX!
One important thing about Barnes bullets: they seemed to be designed/optimised for military calibers like .224, .308 and .338.
Bullets is these calibers are much better designed than 6mm, .257, 6.5mm, .277 and 7mm bullets.
This means that Barnes bullets overperform in 224 Rem , 22-250, 308 Win, 300 WSW, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag and 338 Lapua Mag.
An interesting tidbit, he's absolutely fascinated by Berger bullets and spend way to much time punching paper with 155gr Berger Palma match bullets!
I know that he want to use Berger hunting VLD bullets but won't do it because of many club member have had non-successes (blown-up bullets with little penetration) with Berger bullets.
Alex
they re using the 30-06 too ...
but what is most important is the training and of course the fact that they needed to have results on their shooting exams ...
in europe i ve seen a lot the 6,5x57 and the 270 in the hands of austrian hunters but they re using too the 7x64 ...
more than calibers the bullet placment is the key.
i ve read old stories about scandinavian explorers that used the 6,5x55SE and 160 round nose against polar bears without bad success even if they re better choice i wont feel undergunned with that combo ...
all the best.
troutseeker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Prince George, BC
Everyone know's that the .270 is a baby gun.
I have shot 4 moose with 6.5mm Chamberings, One with the 264 Win Mag [140 Partition, 305 yards, double lung, DRT] and 3 with the 6.5 Swede. The closest shot was 55 yards, the longest was 325 yards. All lung shots, none went more than a few yards after the hit. I also used that 140 Partition in the Swede. One of these moose was a decent sized bull. I recovered only one of these Partitions, the rest made exit holes.
I regard the 6.5x55 as decent moose medicine as long as the presentation is good, and the shooter can place the shot properly. Bullet choice is a factor, of course.
If the 270/130 is OK for moose, then, technically, the 6.5/125 is also OK, since the two bullets are very similar in sectional density, and the difference in velocity is not great.
I have had the privilege of being in on a lot of moose kills, and have drawn some conclusions based on that experience.
Moose are not as hard to put down as are Elk.
A lung shot moose is dead in a very short time.
Moose are tasty animals, and are worth hunting.
Moose are best shot close to a road or trail, unless you have horses or an ATV.
It doesn't take a cannon to kill a Moose.
Regards, Eagleye.
I regard the 6.5x55 as decent moose medicine as long as the presentation is good, and the shooter can place the shot properly. Bullet choice is a factor, of course.
If the 270/130 is OK for moose, then, technically, the 6.5/125 is also OK, since the two bullets are very similar in sectional density, and the difference in velocity is not great.
I have had the privilege of being in on a lot of moose kills, and have drawn some conclusions based on that experience.
Moose are not as hard to put down as are Elk.
A lung shot moose is dead in a very short time.
Moose are tasty animals, and are worth hunting.
Moose are best shot close to a road or trail, unless you have horses or an ATV.
It doesn't take a cannon to kill a Moose.
Regards, Eagleye.
You make my point. The distinctions are blurry, as are perceptions of size. I expect you think "Newfoundland moose" are smaller based on what you have observed from what was harvested, e.g. photos from hunts, etc. But with probably over 150,000 moose on this island, and about 24,000 of them harvested every year, the vast majority of these are young animals taken close to roads and communities. There are still large parts of the interior accessible only by bush plane, canoe and the like, that sees little hunting pressure. There are some "dandies" back there, I assure you. So while there was a population bottleneck back in 1904, the effect in genetic terms probably hasn't panned out in the way you think.
I regard the 6.5x55 as decent moose medicine as long as the presentation is good, and the shooter can place the shot properly. Bullet choice is a factor, of course. ... A lung shot moose is dead in a very short time. Moose are tasty animals, and are worth hunting.
Regards, Eagleye.
I think I'd have to agree with all of those conclusions.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
I really doubt that a .308 165gr. TSX is better designed than a 6.5mm 130gr. TSX.......just different sizes.
I use to shoot the 130gr. TSX in 264 mag and I would of pointed it at any animal the walks the earth. No less deadly than a 165 gr. TSX.
7mm barnes bullets are also no less deadly.
Sorry..you're going to have to explain that some more. Im slow on the uptake this morning.
I have shot 4 moose with 6.5mm Chamberings, One with the 264 Win Mag [140 Partition, 305 yards, double lung, DRT] and 3 with the 6.5 Swede. The closest shot was 55 yards, the longest was 325 yards. All lung shots, none went more than a few yards after the hit. I also used that 140 Partition in the Swede. One of these moose was a decent sized bull. I recovered only one of these Partitions, the rest made exit holes.
I regard the 6.5x55 as decent moose medicine as long as the presentation is good, and the shooter can place the shot properly. Bullet choice is a factor, of course.
If the 270/130 is OK for moose, then, technically, the 6.5/125 is also OK, since the two bullets are very similar in sectional density, and the difference in velocity is not great.
I have had the privilege of being in on a lot of moose kills, and have drawn some conclusions based on that experience.
Moose are not as hard to put down as are Elk.
A lung shot moose is dead in a very short time.
Moose are tasty animals, and are worth hunting.
Moose are best shot close to a road or trail, unless you have horses or an ATV.
It doesn't take a cannon to kill a Moose.
Regards, Eagleye.
Moose are not difficult to kill with a well placed shot. Put one through the lungs and leave him alone, he won't go far. Here in N.B. the favoured method is calling. The season is usually at the height of the rut so call the moose into a location where you can get at him. Two friends of mine have killed seven between them with a .25/06 and Nosler Partitions, no moose wounded and lost. Hearing a bull respond to your call and come crashing through the woods, grunting steadily is guaranteed to get anybody wound up. That, to me, is the reason for most flubbed shots on moose here, excitement.
I really doubt that a .308 165gr. TSX is better designed than a 6.5mm 130gr. TSX.......just different sizes.
I use to shoot the 130gr. TSX in 264 mag and I would of pointed it at any animal the walks the earth. No less deadly than a 165 gr. TSX.
7mm barnes bullets are also no less deadly.
Sorry..you're going to have to explain that some more. Im slow on the uptake this morning.
The design issue is strictly related to ballistic coefficient.
270 Caliber
Diameter Weight Description S.D. B.C. CAT#
.277" 130-gr TSX BT .242 .374 27742
.277" 140-gr TSX BT .261 .404 27744
.277" 150-gr TSX FB .279 .386 27746*
30 Caliber
Diameter Weight Description S.D. B.C. CAT#
.308" 110-gr TSX FB .166 .264 30835
.308" 130-gr TSX BT .196 .340 30838
.308" 150-gr TSX BT .226 .369 30841
.308" 165-gr TSX BT .248 .398 30843
.308" 168-gr TSX BT .253 .404 30844
.308" 180-gr TSX BT .271 .453 30846
.308" 200-gr TSX FB .301 .423 30848*
If 2 bullets have an equivalent design, bullet with the same sectional density (SD) should have the same ballistic coefficient (BC).
Look at 2 important .277 bullets
.277 130gr .242 S.D. .374 B.C.
.308 165gr .248 S.D. .398 B.C. (6% better - normal)
.277 150gr .279 S.D. .386 B.C.
.308 180gr .271 S.D. .453 B.C. (17% better - very painful)
This pattern is recurrent and by looking at the bullet spec table, you can see that .308 bullets are 5%-10% more efficient than .277 bullets.
Not a big difference but enough to be annoyed sometimes,
Alex
My opinion is 270 WSM is that it's 7 WSM twin brother. 7 WSM is simply the most accurate medium bore long range cartridge.
7 WSM is better because of faster barrel twist and better bullet choice but unfortunately it died prematurely (mostly because of 270 WSM).
The main advantage of 270 WSM over 270 Win are 1/2" shorter rifle, 1/2 lb lighter rifle, better accuracy (can be debated) and 200fps more in muzzle velocity (can also be debated).
I feel that 270 WSM is a little (5-10%) better than 270 Win.
I will use a 140gr Nosler Accubond driven at 3150fps by a case full of Retumbo.
I love this bullet since Accubond (like Ballistic Tip) often deliver match accuracy (1/2 - 3/4 MAO 5 shot groups).
This exact load was used by a friend to kill an elk at long distance last year in Western United States.
This year, he's try a 140gr a Barnes TSX (he sells reloading component).
I don't think that 270 WSM is the ultimate cartridge but it might be one of the best all rounders like 270 Win and the more powerful 7 Rem Mag.
Alex
Hearty amen to that. Too many hunters figure that if he doesn't drop on the spot, bang flop, they must have either missed or he's invincible, and they keep shooting. Chances are you will know instinctively and immediately whether you made a good shot, and if so, follow up isn't usually necessary.
Firstly to state by bias, I love the 6.5x55, in part due to its heavy for calibre bullets and correspondingly high sectional densities. Here in Canada I only hunt with a 6.5x55 or a .375 H&H.
However there are no flys on the .270. In fact I used a .270 on a Kudu hunt a few weeks ago. The Kudu eluded us but I did take a Blue Wildebeest with the .270 using a hanloaded 140 grain remington core-loct bullet. It was a clean and quick one shot kill, and I was completely happy with the performance of this bullet (I also used the .270 for my Impala, but Impala are not a very tough animal to put down). Also with some of the new rapidly expanding yet tough bullets such as the TSX I believe that light bullets are not as limited in their application as they once were.
Its the same story thats been repeated here time and time again... if you put the bullet in the right spot....... In other words, if you are confident in your .270 pick an appropriate bullet and load for the game you are hunting and enjoy yourself
However there are no flys on the .270. In fact I used a .270 on a Kudu hunt a few weeks ago. The Kudu eluded us but I did take a Blue Wildebeest with the .270 using a hanloaded 140 grain remington core-loct bullet. It was a clean and quick one shot kill, and I was completely happy with the performance of this bullet (I also used the .270 for my Impala, but Impala are not a very tough animal to put down). Also with some of the new rapidly expanding yet tough bullets such as the TSX I believe that light bullets are not as limited in their application as they once were.
Its the same story thats been repeated here time and time again... if you put the bullet in the right spot....... In other words, if you are confident in your .270 pick an appropriate bullet and load for the game you are hunting and enjoy yourself
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
BC's are not the same but I dont' think it hardly makes a difference in the ranges we are talking about. (up to 200 yard right?)
I could see That loooong range shooters worry about BC's but guys shooting 1000 yards rarely shoot Barnes bullets at that distance.....They would likely Move to a Berger hunting bullet or Matrix in the case of the .270 win (Even an SMK which is not supposed to able to Kill anything (or at least expand reliably) but seems to do it very frequently).
Mind you we are no longer talking about Barnes bullets but the point being I don't think people who use barnes are too worried about BC's and more about penetration
Interesting Fact is that the matrix .277 175gr. bullet has BC (static) of 0.7828
Well Alex, I have to disagree on several points.
The 7mm WSM is the most accurate medium bore long range cartridge? Where did you get that from? The 6.5's of various flavours seem to be the darlings of the long range crowd these days. Not only that, but I believe the rifle itself has much more to do with accuracy than the cartridge.
Rifles in .270 wsm are generally not 1/2 lbs lighter. The Winchester Featherweights are listed at the same weight for both chamberings. The Tikka T3 Lite weighs less in the .270 Win than in the WSM version. In the Sako 85 - all versions - they weigh the same too. In the Tikka and the Sako the WSM has approximately 2" longer barrel - so the rifles are actually longer, not 1/2" shorter.
The .270 WSM burns much more powder for no practical gain in performance. You say you are getting 3150 fps with a 140gr Accubond and Retumbo. I bet you are using over 70gr of powder, right?
By way of comparison, I used to load 130gr Barnes to high 3100's with RL 22 out of a 22" barrel. Barnes #4 lists 6 powders with charge weights of 55 to 59.5gr giving 3133 to 3211fps out of a 24" barrel.
Are you saying that there is any practical difference to a 130gr TTSX and a 140gr Accubond at roughly the same velocity? The TTSX will expand out to 625 yards and niether I, nor the vast majority of hunters are going to shoot anywhere near that far. I've seen what the 130gr Barnes will do on game - it is very impressive.
But if you want to stick with the 140 Accubond, I was getting low to mid 3000s with them out of a 22" barrel too, So I really don't see the point of more expensive brass, larger powder charges, and more recoil for no practical improvement in performance.
To say the .270 WSM is 5-10% better is very odd indeed. Will a moose take 5-10% fewer steps after being hit with the wsm? Will you have a 5-10% better chance of hitting the vitals?
I'll be the first to admit that it is fun to play with new stuff, but the reality is, as many have already pointed out, you don't need a cannon to kill a moose. The .270 Winchester is plenty fine, as is a host of other chamberings - both larger and smaller.
I'll start by saying that I agree with almost everything that you posted.
The 5-10% better means that I might get an extra 25-50 yards in effective hunting range!
My chances of hitting a vital might be 5-10% lower because of increased recoil...
My answers:
7 WSM is a superb cartridge : long range benchrest records were set with 7 WSM, the British F-Class Open team beat everyone with 7 WSM.
If you buy the same rifle in 270 Win and 270 WSM, 270 WSM action should be shorter because case is shorter. If this is not the case, the gunmaker decided to save money in his design. (might be a very good idea) For a given barrel length, you get an extra 1/2" of effective barrel length. For many brands of rifles offered in short and long action the weight difference is 1/2 lbs. (this can be argued) I won't try hide the fact that I'm a big fan of the Remington 700 action even with the quality of the current products.
Barrel length is a religious issue but I love 24"-26" for high intensity cartridges. Many people are happier with 20"-22" barrels but I prefer to get an extra 50-75 yards of effective range and lower muzzle blast for an extra 1/2lbs in weight.
Finally, I initially planned on using Matrix 165gr hunting VLD at 2900fps with their 0.630 - 0.640 BC but the recoil is too much in a 8.5lbs rifle and 140 Nosler Accubond with their almost 0.500 BC is the best proven and accurate bullet that I can find to reload. Barnes are better at killing but Accubond fly better.
Finally, I choose 270 WSM mainly because of superior accuracy and burning efficiency of short fat case (this also can be argued) and the superior 7 WSM is dying with no new rifles offered and ammo almost impossible to find.
Alex
Last edited:
I have had, and seen, more one-shot kills on really big game, AK-Yukon moose, mountain caribou bulls, and bears, with the 270 than any other cartridge. This includes the second largest bull I ever took, and that using a 130 gr. Silvertip at more than double the 200 yd limit mentioned above.
Sorry for the short post.
Ted
Sorry for the short post.
Ted
