quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by merlinron:
i don't know if it has actually "flopped" or not, but, the same group of "gun expert" consumer types that buy into the new and fabulous short mag trendy hype are mostly the same group that don't/can't identify and/or never learned the differences between the 7x57 and the 7 rem mag. they are all "7-m-m's, one of those german army cartridges" to them. but they do know that a .270 is a good shooter because every store that sells rifles stocks what they sell in .270 and .30-'06, so they see the boxes of bullets on the shelves at deer season time and every field and stream type rag has stories about the .270 in them.
i once had a buddy at work ask me, "why one company call the 7-m-m a ( "7x57 mauser") and one company calls it a ("7-m-m remington magnum"), aren't they the same thing"?.... he was shooting a savage .270.

Your comments may have been true before the Internet but now people aren't so ignorant.

i don't know about that, i still hear the exact thing i'm talking about from plenty of guys... young and old.
the same bunch that bowhunts with a puney little 6"- 5oz. stabilizer on thier bows and no sling, and you can't make them understand the importance of the right stuff because all the stores sell the silly junk the dealers push the hell out of it in the magazines. they don't understand the importance of a peep( the same as a rear sight on a gun) or that they don't have to be as small as a pin hole to work, or that a 320 fps. bow won't shoot that fast with real life equipment .... and this group is mostly made up of the younger, definately post-internet crowd. the fact that all the info is there on the net doesn't mean everyone uses it to thier fullest advantage, only those truely interested in the shooting sports makes the effort to look into what they see in the stores and read in the mags.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I suppose that by using the word "flopped" you mean that it didn't meet up to some expectation, whatever that was. Did anyone expect it to replace the 7mm RM or 280 or whatever? They didn't ask my opinion, but if they had, I would have told them not likely.

The title of this thread was poorly chosen. I should have included "flopped against the 270 WSM" because that is what I meant.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kabluewy:
QUOTE]

The title of this thread was poorly chosen. I should have included "flopped against the 270 WSM" because that is what I meant.

I for one am in the dark as I have not seen any sales figures on rifles for either cartridge as compared for example to sales figures for .308 or 30-06 rifles over the same period of time.

There seem to be a lot of old standards at the range but not many short fatties ( Not counting me). Anyone have any good figures on this.

Pontification is humorous and jolly facts are more acceptableroger

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I actually think the WSMs are fine calibers. I'm willing to bet if Rem and Win knew then what they know now, we wouldn't have the 7mm Rem mag or 300 Win mag if the WSMs came out first.

Probably right. I already have a 7mm Remington Magnum, it's already dialed in with a happy load, and there's no strong incentive to change.

quote:

Originally posted by Bear Kodiak:
It hasn't really flopped. The WSSM's are flops. The fact that the 7mmWSM got a late start compared to the 270WSM and 300WSM hurt it some. Most did not take to the shoulder being pushed forward by .035" on the 7.

The 270WSM has very little competition with only two other factory chamberings offered.

Remington is the one who missed the boat, again. The SAUM case design is a better fit for short actions, but they only offered it in the Model 7 with 22" barrels to start with. Most Remington buyers want the Model 700 and a magnum lentgth barrel in a magnum cartridge. Instead of intrducing a 6.5SAUM and a 35SAUM, Reming-dumb re-introduced the 6.5 and 350 Rem mags. Nothing wrong with those, for they were ahead of their time, but they do not carry the "new" beltless factor that was the driving force of the short mags.

Also when Remington re-introduced the 6.5 and 350 rem mag they put it in the 673. They should have put out a short action with a magnum barrel and maybe a appealing looking laminate stock.

As far as the 7mm goes I own both a 270 wsm and 300 wsm. I also own a 7x57 but the 7mm rem mag just never appealed to me. I don't know why the 7mm wsm hasn't done better but I believe it can be tied to Winchester going tits up not long after it was introduced. Then idiots spouting off on how the short mags killed "the rifleman's rifle" even though the end was nigh long before the short mags were on the radar.

i have a buddy that has a lazz patriot that doesn't group anywhere near as tight as his 300wm, which doesn't group near as tight as a another friends 300 weatherby. then again, i have a 3006 that is better than all three, but also a 375 HH that is near that of the 06, which is better than the same make and model but in a 308. go figure.

For the general public the 7mm WSM is probably a flop but for me, it is not. I shoot extensively and treasure two .270 WSM's, WOW what a round for critters from ground hogs-p-dogs to Elk. It has taught me that the short fat cartridges are indeed super accurate, as the builders intended. My next purchase will probably be the 7mm WSM and the "why" is a plentyfull supply of 7mm bullets I gathered for my 7mm Rem and 7mm STW over the years. The rifles are also relatitively cheap. Another "why", it attracts me is my grand children. It will just fit one of them with a good scope (Ziess-Leupold) somewhere down the road. Load it mild or load it hot as they age and it becomes a sweet Deer-Elk round indeed, with potential for African plains game. Good shooting.

Took the 7mm Wizzum to Altcar ranges along with the .270Win/.223Rem, Yesterday shooting at 500 metres in a 10mph breeze right to left, All shots in the inner ring with a V-bull as a bonus, Just felt like the 7mm was arriving on target a little quicker than the .270, 162gn A-max in the 7 & 130gn Remmy flat base in the .270, The .223 was abit more of a challenge, my missus put me to shame shooting her Remmy S.P.S. 52gn A-max's all in the inner ring!If this is how a cartridge flop feels, Bring it on!!

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
The title of this thread was poorly chosen. I should have included "flopped against the 270 WSM" because that is what I meant.

With that clarified I can agree whole heartedly... and the only reason I can think of is tradition.

Because rifle buyers are a fickle bunch. Just look at how all of them peed their pants about the 375 Rooger cause of its shorter bolt stroke versus the 375 H&H.

If I was pinned down on one definitive answer, it would be that Winchester didn't do enough hyping of the 7mmWSM. If you dangle a flashy baited hook in front of people often enough, some will bite on reflex alone.

Because everything you need to do with a 7mm bullet can be done with a 7-08, 280, and 7 Rem Mag.

The wsm's and wssm's are the best cartridges to come down the factory pike in years.

I'll chime in here with my 2 cents worth on the subject. The first problem is that it was released after the .270 WSM. Everyone pretty much knew it was coming, but the .270 came first and filled the sub-.30-caliber hole well enough that most people who were going to be the early adopters didn't bother waiting around when the .270 did what they wanted right out of the box.

After the .270 WSM was out and received well by the shooting public, no one really needed the 7mm variant, and it's botched introduction left a bad taste in people's mouths. The .270's are hard to keep on the shelves locally, really in-demand. Ammo and brass are brisk sellers. New guns are being released in .270 and .300 WSM while the 7mm WSM's are being offered at a discount to get them moving.

I believe the 7mm WSM is probably better than the .270 for obvious reasons, better velocity with same-weight bullets. Weight range is similar, but the 7mm just has that little bit more. But with it's slower release, recall, and subsequent rerelease it's been slow on the uptake compared directly to the .270.

I recently had an opportunity to buy an Accutrigger-equipped stainless Savage in 7mm WSM at $100 less than the .270 and .300 models simply due to poor sales and kick myself for not buying it in retrospect. There is nothing wrong with it, it's a fine, powerful round for everything minus the big bears (although some would argue a piddly 7mm would bounce off an elk), it's just a victim of it's own release.

In the field the 7mm WSM and the .270 WSM have near identical performance and one will not MEASUREABLY do anything better than the other when it comes to killing game. The same can be said about the old .270 or .280. Mox-Nix. roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
In the field the 7mm WSM and the .270 WSM have near identical performance and one will not MEASUREABLY do anything better than the other when it comes to killing game. The same can be said about the old .270 or .280. Mox-Nix. roger

It's really pretty funny when you look at it. Odds are you aren't going to get a 175gr. bullet to seat with any meaningful powder space in the 7mm WSM, so that leaves the 160gr as the top end, with the 150's as the top end in the .270 WSM. Comparing the ballistics of the loads, the .270 starts a measly 100fps faster and shoots .3" flatter at 300 yards, while the 7mm has 80 ft/pounds more energy at the same 300 yards and drifts .3" less. The diameter difference is .007". That's basically identical in my books. Winchester should have done the .300 and .270 WSM's and left it at that IMO. Popular sellers, both of them. Especially judging from the younger hunters and shooters at my range.

Seems to me the 7mm WSM is a compromise cartridge. The 270 WSM is popular among the people who like the 270 Win but wanted more and the 300 WSM is popular among the .30 caliber crowd.
I know I own a 270 WSM and the 300 WSM but was never excited about the 7 WSM.
Who knows for sure, it is hard to figure these things out.

MikeyB - that would depend on the particular rifle you're using (the 175's) as to being able to fit them. If you're using a M70, you might be able to get them in, depends on the chamber more then the magazine. The M70 boxes are 3.1", where other brands have a more standard 2.86-2.95" magazine box, which WOULD create a powder volume issue. I'm having my 7wsm chamber recut a bit in order to load 180VLD's, since the magazine has more then enough space to seat them out real far like a 6.5x284.

Earlier in the post someone mentioned the 270 had better success because 270 is associated with Winchester....I kind of have to believe that too. Everyone knows 7mm is Remingtons domain, even if they usually screw up stuff with their name on it lol. But hey, America loves its 7mm's almost as much as its 30's, so if you're going to make a new line of standard big game carts....you almost HAVE to have a 7mm.

Something about the 270wsm just never turned me on, and I owned an early 300wsm, I'm having a custom 300wsm being built currently, I own a 7mmWSM, a 25wssm, and have plans to build some wildcat wsm's and wssm's.

If Winchester could have got the 25wsm working the way they wanted to, or tried a 6.5wsm, then the 270 would have been more displaced in the line up.