.270 win or .270wsm....bought one....pics!

todbartell said:
I think the tupperware stock T3 are just plain not fun to shoot in anything similar to a WSM or magnum. The laminate or walnut versions might be normal
Click to expand...

I really didn't find my T3 .300wm too bad at all, although it was noticable from the .308. If you're shooting hundreds of rounds thru it, it might wear on you. Mine had a limbsaver on it, which is a good improvement for sure.
 
the plastic stocks just dont soak up recoil well

me thinks if Tikka put a steel bolt shroud on their rifles, they would kick alot less :onCrack:
 
Shot a friends T3 in 300wsm, Did not care for it. Seems Like pay a couple of hundred bills more for a gun that may compare to a similar savage or remington
 
Bishopus said:
It actually is the whole story. There's no magic in case design that can get away from the fundamental physical science at work. An action creates an equal and opposite reaction. That's recoil. There's no spooky action at a distance, no relativity to consider--it's just boring old Newton.


Not really, no it isn't. Wide powder columns may burn more _uniformly_, but they do not burn any faster or slower than narrow powder columns. Powder burn rate is a physical constant, based on the properties of the powder and the starting point of ignition (the primer).


No, it's not. 'Efficiency' means 'how much energy comes out (MV and ME) versus the amount of energy that went in (joules of chemical energy--the powder charge). Winchester marketing used this term to explain how the .300 WSM could produce identical velocities to the .300 Win Mag with less powder capacity. They used it correctly, and it's a fine (if slightly misleading) explanation for what's happening.


This is totally untrue. All powders but particularly progressive powders (i.e. 'slow' or 'magnum' powders) do some burning in the barrel, and that's exactly what you want--you want the pressure spike to rise smoothly and evenly until the moment the projectile leaves the barrel. Even a .22 LR needs at least 12" of barrel to burn all the powder in its miniscule case. Again, the burn rate of powder depends entirely on the physical characteristics of the powder and the initial ignition, not on the case design.


It may burn less uniformly, but it will not burn any faster or slower, and it will not transform the chemical energy of the powder into bullet velocity any more efficiently. These things are simply not possible.


It doesn't matter where the powder burns, case or throat or barrel, it all creates energy which pushes the bullet out, and pushes back against your shoulder.


This is true! Barrels wear out from hot gasses eroding away the rifling at the throat. Note that all cartridges expel hot gasses into the throat, even magical short fat ones.


Yeah, wonder why that is....?:popCorn:
Click to expand...


Your opinion is noted and dismissed... you have no science and you have no physics to back up your argument. :(
There is a ton of DOCUMENTED science out there on this subject and the short fat powder column and case design is well known to be more efficient and has been for over 30 years!:)
I suggest you read ( or maybe just look at the pictures given your obvious comprehension levels ) some of the following articles and maybe spend a little less time trolling for an argument with no facts.:bsFlag: :wave:
You can hijack away Bishopus... I am putting you on my ignore list.. I suggest you do the same for me.:cool:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/shooting/article/0,13199,191787,00.html
http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=858
http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/features/detail.asp?ID=75
http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-shooting/the-state-of-the-cartridge/
 


I love ya Big, wouldn't dream of putting you on my ignore list. Look, the .270 WSM is a fine cartridge--I'd actually love to find one in a Win70 classic featherweight (if anybody can help...).

BUT, even USRAC Winchester can't violate the laws of thermodynamics... :(
 
Gatehouse said:
All the plastic on the T3 makes it bad.

:popCorn:
Click to expand...

I think that the plastic on the Tikka's is the good kind... the bad plastic is easily distinguished from the good kind by using nondestructive acoustic micro imaging.:)
Remingtons are known to have bad plastic... I personally get a rash.:rockOn:
 
.270 win was never considered an ideal moose round.
However moose do not look at balistic tables,it is more important where they are hit ,not what they are hit with.
Marginal performance gains do not offset pricing and availability
 
sniper338 said:
.270 win was never considered an ideal moose round.
However moose do not look at balistic tables,it is more important where they are hit ,not what they are hit with.
Marginal performance gains do not offset pricing and availability
Click to expand...


.270 win was never considered an ideal moose round
According to who? And what is the reason for that?
What has pricing and availability got to do with performance? Assuming that you live on Earth there are lots of bullets available at reasonable prices for both the .270 and the .270WSM.
I am fascinated that Moose would not look at ballistic tables... have you witnessed this phenomenum personally... I saw a chipmunk reading field and stream once.
I'm usually serious.

Welcome to the forum... I don't know what we ever did without you...:D
 
None other than Jack O'Connor wrote that "the 270 isn't a great moose cartridge, since moose are so big and can soak up a lot of lead before toppling over"

But he was probably just using crappy 130gr bullets, which didn't penetrate well...
 
That or Mr. O'Connor musta been on crack if the .270 wasn't adequate for moose, but had enough jam to take an elephant. :evil:
Point out a moose and I guarantee you that .270, WSM or not, it's going down...fast.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how much stock to put in the theory but I have read for years that a .270WIN was "borderline" for ELK. Hunter/Writers like Simpson, Boddington, Weiland and others have all recently used the .270WSM on Elk. And to a man they have all said that the Short Mag version is a capable Elk cartridge.
I have no opinion as I am not an Elk hunter... I know there are quite a few Elk hunters like "gtrdun" here that have a valid opinion on this.:cool:
 
I take all the advice that those writers give, and take it worth a grain of salt. All they do is contradicte each other and themselves from issue to issue, depending on who's paying the bills that month. Colonel Craig, with his "Fast .30's" are a minimum. (And I hate seeing fast .30 in print. Reading his articles is like watching a Swartzeneger movie, you just know "I'll be back" is in there, you just don't know when.) These guys are all accomplished hunters, shooters and salesmen. If we all had big sponsers giving us guns, ammo and trips, we too could say "This new galactic whizz bang .412 Thompson is the bare minimum for our whitetail these days. Don't you know their bigger than they were 50 years ago?" I really don't care what you use for a cartridge choice, I'm more concerned about bullet choice. A shoulder shot on an elk with a crappy bullet out of a .338 will probably be a bad idea. A heart shot with a Barnes out of a .25-06 will kill the biggest bull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom