Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: new rifle debate

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    481

    Default new rifle debate

    I have been thinking about getting a new sheep rifle. I'm having a little trouble between three calibers. I'm torn between 270, 280 or the 270 wsm. I have been leaning tords the 280, because I can go with a little heavier bullet. But the 270 is very common and I can get shells for it anywhere, even thought I do reload it is for the just in case I forgot my shells or someone lost the(airlines ect). I want to it to be light and not kick the snot out of me. Also I wont be shoting over 400 yards. What do you guys thing. I

  2. #2
    Member moses42ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Peters Creek
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Personally I would go 270 WSM. It is everything the 270 is and more. You don't need the heavier bullets offered by the 280 for sheep. A 130, 140 or even 150 grain bullet in a 270 caliber is more than enough for sheep. Use quality components and you will never have a problem for sheep.

    As for availability the WSM family is becoming more and more prominent. You can normally find ammo in any gun shop that is regularly stocked.

  3. #3
    Member The Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    1,089

    Default good ole 270

    I'd go with the tried and true 270 WCF. It shoots plenty flat for the ranges you mention, ammo is easy to find,and ammo is cheap when you do have to buy some, also the 270 is light recoiling which will be good in a light rifle.
    Oh yea , and Jack O'Conner's spirit will accompany you on all future sheep hunts, keeping you safe and assuring success.

  4. #4

    Default

    I really like the 270 WSM. The 270 Win will do you well, but the WSM will shoot a little flatter. Also, there is only .007" difference in diameter between the .277 and .284 which translates to about .010 in expansion differnce. Not a whole lot. WSM ammo is also becoming more available as already mentioned.

    If I get a 270 WSM (and I do want one), the first bullets I will try would be the 130 E-Tip and 140 AB. My thoughts on bullets... I like the heavier for cal bullets for better BC and downrange effectiveness. But if I was limiting myself to 400 yds, I would go with the med weight for cal bullets for higher velocity and flatter shooting, unless I was hunting large bears. The faster bullets will expand to about the same diameter, assuming similar construction, and cause more cavitation/permanant wound channel.

    Godd hunting,

    -MR

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Another vote for the 270WSM. It is a power house in a small package. One benefit you can get is a little smaller and compact rifle, since the 270WSM is built on a shorter action. This is a little weight savings that you may feel at the end of the day. You can push 140's to about 3200-3300 with the WSM with no troubles, and the factory loads all shoot pretty close to their advertised speeds. I have a Model 70 270WSM and it is accurate and worked well for Mule Deer and Elk. It would be excellent for smaller game such as sheep and goats. Good luck, you really can't go wrong with any of them, but the 270WSM is a little more of both of them, and the recoil isn't really any different. Scotty

  6. #6

    Default

    I like all of the cartridges that you have suggested and honestly, you can't go wrong with any of them. I really like the 280. Recoil is very mild and the one I have is very accurate. You can't find factory loaded ammo for this one at every store. So this one might not be the right one for you.

    If you reload, then the expense of ammunition is less of an issue. If you like to shoot factory loaded ammo, I would lean more twards the good old 270. The prices of factory loaded ammo are generally much less than the other two.

    I like to collect guns, my answer would be to just buy one of each, see how they shoot and trade off the ones that don't perform to your expectations.

  7. #7
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Honestly....all three of those cartridges are so close to one another in performance, trajectory, and availability......take ur pick.....you'll be happy with any of em. Since the tikka is a standard length action....I'd go with their ultralight....in 270 winchester. If I couldnt have that....I'd go for a browning micro medallion chambered for 270 WSM. Both would be light, affordable, reliable, and accurate. If you want a rifle with heavier bullet options.......A remington model 700 mountain rifle is avail. chambered for the 280 remington which also appears to be affordable and lightweight too.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Thanks guys. To be honest I was leaning tords the 280 in a mountain rifle right from the start. I figured i could use 160 grainers for some big game and 140 for sheep/goats. Now all i need to do is go the thing.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    IMO, the 280 is a far better choice than a 270 WSM.


    Aside, from all the issues with WSMs, (both the cartridges, and the rifles) in general, according to tests by Layne Simpson the 270 WSM is hardly better than the regular 270 Winchester, and sometimes not as good in either Factory loads or Handloads.


    My post at the Link below, has an attached .doc file comparing the ballistics of the test.



    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...t=54481&page=2


    With the 280, why not use the 160 weight for everything. You could run into a bar whilst hunting for "sheep/goats".

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  10. #10

    Default

    Not really as many decent accuracy bullets out there in .277 or the longrange crowd would be shooting them. 7mm is about the most versatile in terms of precision, variety, and availability. If you were just punching paper, the 6mm and .6.5mms offer more with smaller case rounds, but you are looking for hunting performance...

    While the .280 or a short 7mm mag can deliver all you want, the .284 Winchester has the hotrod reputation. Better case design with the rebated rim and greater capacity than the .308 variants. Better for accuracy than the .30-06 or mag variants...

    Almost the same case capacity as the .280rem, but shorter by about .4" so powder density doesn't vary so accuracy is enhanced.

    Build your .284win on a long action so you can seat your bullets above the shoulder to use all your case capacity. Might want an Ackley Improved shoulder for better case life and to obtain just that much more case capacity...

    About the only thing better would be a necked up wildcat. Yet, you can get factory loads in .284 and the 6.5/284 is about the most popular 1000yd competition rifle going so brass is plentiful. Might even find some Lapua somewhere.

    The heavy 7mm bullets will really shine in this case. Buy a box of 195gr Barnes and could probably take Brown Bear.

    No need for a magnum case to get the performance you want.
    Here is the best reason ever to validate a custom barrel. Order with a fast enough twist to handle the 175gr match bullets and heavier and you will have all your bases covered.

    Barnes manual shows 140gr coated bullets at 3050fps and their 160gr match solid w/.552BC at 2700 fps... That is a .308 match velocity with a gain of .100 BC.

    7mm/08 might be close, but why not go for the gusto!

  11. #11

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    IMO, the 280 is a far better choice than a 270 WSM.

    Why doesn't that surprise me?


    Aside, from all the issues with WSMs,(both the cartridges, and the rifles) in general

    Blah, blah, blah and baloney.....


    ...according to tests by Layne Simpson the 270 WSM is hardly better than the regular 270 Winchester, and sometimes not as good in either Factory loads or Handloads.

    This is total irrational nonsense Smitty. There is not a handloading manual anywhere that would come close to givng the 270 Win ballistic parity let alone superiority. Lets look at the data on Nosler's web site for the same 140 bullet bullet and powder....

    WSN, AA3100, 63 gr, MV 3116

    Win, AA3100, 56 gr, MV 2990

    Notice the difference in case capacity by any chance? Are you seriously suggesting the Win could even be close to the WSM with that difference? That would be like saying the 30-06 is equal to or superior to hte 300 WSM in ballistcs and that's just plain crazy. You will find precious few other than those who have some odd irrational bias because it's something "NEW" and it rocks the established world.

    Come on, give it a rest. A lot of guys love the WSM's, you dont... that's cool....


    With the 280, why not use the 160 weight for everything. You could run into a bar whilst hunting for "sheep/goats".

    Smitty of the North

    A great option no doubt.... I'll take the 270 WSM thank you


    Cheers,


    -MR

  12. #12

    Default

    The Hornady Light Magnum 130 grain offering is on par with the hottest 140 grain load in the Nosler manual. It shoots just as flat and yields a trivial 5 ftlbs of energy at the muzzle and a mere 89 ftlbs at 400 yards.

    The Light Magnum load is what I hunt with when I grab the .270. The last two boxes I bought at Sheels were a couple bucks cheaper than the Winchester WSM 130gr factory stuff.

    I might add that a gunbroker.com search of auctions ending in the last week revealed 17 pages of 270 WSM related items that were for sale. There were 16 pages of 270 Winchester stuff for sale over the same time period. As far as guns alone go there were 28 of the 270 Winny's that were bid on and only 13 of the 270 WSM's that folk cared to make an offer on.

    So Smitty as it turns out folk are still making offers on rifles chambered for the old standard cartridge at a rate of better than 2 to 1 over the new kid on the block. So your ok...your still with the in crowd!

    Confession time....As much as I love my old tried and true Ruger 77/270 I had to get one of those WSM's a couple of years ago. I was intrigued by a short action .270 and love the concept of the controlled round push feed on the Winchester Shadow. With Hornady Lt Mags aside and shooting my reloads the WSM is an Honest 200fps faster than the 270 with 130 grainers. I shoot the top load of 4831sc in both cartridges. The 270 @ 3100fps and the WSM @ 3300fps. What this translates to at 500 yards(further than I'll ever shoot anything) is -32 inches of drop for the WSM and -37 inches for the 270. The WSM again has the edge in velocity and energy with 2241fps/1450ftlbs, the 270-2084fps/1350ftlbs. At 400 yards the difference is even smaller...the 270 drops a mere 2.5 inches more than the WSM.

    My honest opinion is that the difference between the two is a mute point. The critter would never know the difference out to 500 yards.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,805

    Default

    MR:
    As you may know, or choose to ignore, the 270 WSMs are loaded to much HIGHER pressures than a 270, and the 280's MAP is less.


    I'm sure a Hot-Rodder such as yourself, (who believes that his load is safe until he sees pressure signs) could easily load a 270 to higher velocity than a 270 WSM. Also, there are differences in rifles, loads, etc.


    Read the data in the attached file, that came from the article by Layne Simpson. (Read the whole thread.)


    A 270 WSM, SHOULD have the edge on the 270 Win, but Layne Simpson's test indicated that not always the case.


    The 270, 130 Grain Factory load was on average, 62 fps faster than the same bullet weight in the Great, Much Hyped, High Pressure, 270 WSM. Some other loads were pretty close, which convinces me there is little meaningful ballistics advantage to the Short Fat Version. Certainly, not enough to choose it over the Plain Ole Garden Variety 270. When you add the Feeding Issues, the Pressure issues, and the Sizing issues, it's a beeg No, No, for recommending to others.


    I said, it's "hardly better", and I'm pretty certain of that.


    And, if you wanna poo, poo the problems people have had with the WSMs, then you're not very well informed. I wouldn't want to hafta deal with them.


    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  14. #14

    Default

    You won't know the difference in the 3 and neither will the sheep. All are flat shooting enough and powerful enough. All will serve you well. I would pick the 270 Winchester due to the ease of finding ammo. I have two 270 winchesters and they have accounted for a lot of game. I've thought about getting a 270 WSM, but figure why complicate things. I've got hundreds of rounds of brass for the 270 Winchester, some great loads developed, and it would be a redundant rifle. If you think the extra speed is necessary than get a 7mm Rem Mag or the Ultra Mag. If you want a more efficient round get the 7mm-08. Lots of choices and all will kill sheep out to as far as you can shoot.

  15. #15
    Member c04hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    572

    Default I went through this same debate...

    and the winner was the .280 Rem. The rifle is a Weatherby Mk V Ultra Lightweight. Great rig.

    I bought the .280 partially because I like to be different (EVERYONE owns a .270 or .30-06). And partially because the .280 gives me more flexibility. 140-175 grain bullets for big game. I figure the 140 grain in the .280 will do everything velocity and trajectory-wise that the 130 grain will do out of the .270, and the 175 grain will do everything the 180 grain will do out of the .30-06.

    Plus you have the option to convert to .280 AI, in which case velocities will be very similar to the .270 WSM.

    JMO.

  16. #16
    Member c04hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    572

    Default Oh, one more thing...

    As for ammo availability, I have not been to a store that HAD .270 WSM ammo, but DIDN'T have .280 ammo. There's also this nifty thing, invented by Al Gore, called the internet where you can order ammo and have it delivered to your doorstep. So that wasn't a concern to me.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c04hoosier View Post
    and the winner was the .280 Rem. The rifle is a Weatherby Mk V Ultra Lightweight. Great rig.

    I bought the .280 partially because I like to be different (EVERYONE owns a .270 or .30-06). And partially because the .280 gives me more flexibility. 140-175 grain bullets for big game. I figure the 140 grain in the .280 will do everything velocity and trajectory-wise that the 130 grain will do out of the .270, and the 175 grain will do everything the 180 grain will do out of the .30-06.

    Plus you have the option to convert to .280 AI, in which case velocities will be very similar to the .270 WSM.

    JMO.
    Sounds like a great rifle and the AI version would be cool... it might even come close to 270 Win velocities???

  18. #18
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    Buy all 3 guns and then the only debate will be which one to take on the hunt. Seriously, I think it is all personal preferance. If I were you and didn't have a 30 cal or bigger, I would get the .280, but if you already have a bigger gun, then I would go with the .270 wsm, I have one by the way and I like it a lot. In the end, I would someday like to own all 3

  19. #19
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Flip a coin, all of them will work as well as eachother. As to abilities to use heavier bullets, with todays bullets, you really don't have to go as heavy as possible to work effectively on big game.

    A buddy took a pretty nice moose last weekend with a lowly 7-08 with a 120 gr barnes tsx.





    It passed through both shoulder blades, clipped the spine, and stopped just inside the hide on the far shoulder.

  20. #20
    Member Dan in Alaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    854

    Default

    When I was looking for a dedicated sheep rifle, a friend told me to stick with a short action. He said sheep hunting was about saving weight, above all else. He pointed out that short action rifles are lighter, and their ammo is lighter as well. He had a valid point.

    After a brief romance with a Remington Model 7 in .260, I ended up with an Remington 700 Ti, in 7mm-08. In fact, I bought the used Ti from someone on this very forum.

    This particular rifle is proving to be an exceptionally wise purchase. It shoots extremely well, and topped with a Leupold 2-7x in Talley rings, it weighs only 6-1/4 pounds. I find myself carrying this rifle more and more, even though I have plenty of other rifles to choose from. A lightweight & handy rifle is a GREAT hunting companion.

    Paul, I would have used a bigger rifle to shoot that moose, but to be honest, I'm just not man enough to lug around a bigger rifle.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •