I am in the process of buying a lighter (weight wise) rifle for my deer shooting. I am quite keen on the Tikka T3's. I am considering the 7mm/08 or maybe a .270wsm. I have spent quite a few hours looking at the ballistics of both cartridges. Out to 300 yds there is no more than an inch in it, which would take in 90% of my shots on game. Out to 400yds there is about 2 inches more drop in the 7mm/08. thats as far as I'd ever want to shoot. I live in NZ and shoot deer up to the size of Reds and hopefully soon some Himalayan Tahr. Is there really any noticable difference is the field between these to calibres all other thing being equal. The 7mm/08 seems the most practical choice, but I am interested in the .270wsm.

welcome to the real world. If you look further you'll find out that there really isn't much difference between lots of rounds. Mostly just humanity and hype. once you reach a velocity level an compare, you can go down a long list and find little difference between them.

Trajectory differences of 2" at 400 yds sound quite significant, until you realize this amounts to something like .5 MOA. Hunting rifles which will hold this accuracy level all the way to 400 yds do exist. But other than on the Internet, they are probably not that common, and even fewer hunters can hold this accuracy from field positions.

Besides, bullet drop is often the less problematic part of long range shooting. It is quite easy to learn to use a certain hold over at a particular range (assuming you know the exact range - but that has become easier in these days of laser range finders). Dealing with the wind is often the more difficult part of long range shooting.

All in all, choice of caliber can be based on what the trajectory tables tell us. It could also be based on availability and price of ammo. But it could also be based on longevity of barrels, or cost of reloading components, say. I don't think there is ONE criteria, which refutes all others. Only you can rate the importance of the different criteria, and the next person surely will rate them differently.

The .270 WSM is a great cartridge, but it probably suffers somewhat in the areas of barrel longevity, and ammo cost. The 7mm08 might be a better choice in that respect - or the old .270 Win as the perfect compromise??

- mike

The only significant difference would be recoil. But then I am not a fan of any rifle magnum above 264, just don't see the need. If you can hold 2" different from a field position at 400yds than you are a better person than me anyway. If you use bullets that are more aerodynamic like an SST or Scirocco, it could cut that down even further.

Go with the 7-08. I don't know anything about the short mags but, having had at least one 7-08 since back when it was still a wildcat, I know a whole lot about the 7-08 and its all good.
Easy to load for, versatile, well mannered, accurate.

The 7-08 will be around tomorrow. The WSMs may not be.

The difference in the two is squat.

Easy decision I think. But for that matter I'd take a 7MM over a .270 anything anytime. It's just plain more versatile.

The Tikka T3s all have one length action. They are light regardless of caliber you choose. And yep they are nice rifles.

Honestly, the venerable old 7mm Rem Mag is very very close to being the ballistic twin of the 270WSM. So for shear practicallity I would go with a 7mm Rem Mag. You won't gain or loose anything over the other two cartridge choices of any real significance. Except of course that 7mm Mag ammo is a whole lot easier to obtain.

The wsm will give you more energy @ every distance but for deer size game, probably not an issue. Most hunters can't hold 2" @ 400yds so that's really mute. If I though most of my shots on red stag were going to be out around the 300yds+, I would lean to the .270wsm.

In my book, go for the most accurate. Accuracy kills. Hot numbers influences friends.

Much as a lot of people will comment that there is a better bullet selection fpr the 284/7mm bore size than there is for the 277/6.8mm size after you get either Nosler Partitions or Barnes X-bullets the difference in selection is a "Who cares?"

Inside of 400yards the difference in BC between a Partition and a more aerodynamic Accubond at a given velocity ammounts to a 2-3" change in point of impact.

Given a choice between those two cartridges? 7mm-08.

I find the 270 wsm to be simply too fat for anything of that caliber, however there seems to be a lot of 270 wsm owners who like them.

Personally I would just assume have a 7mm saum or a 284 win, but that is discounting the fact that those chamberings arent doing so well. I wonder how much more popular the 308 based chamberings would be if they produced the same ballistics that they do from a larger case??

Trajectories... I find that 6" of holdover @ 300 yds is easy to deal with, compensating for bullet drop or bullet rise due to a 7% grade gets a bit more challenging though.

IMO , I just don't think the numbers sound right here. Considering the speed the WSM will drive a 130 gr slug , there should be alot more diff than 2 inches at 400......

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
IMO , I just don't think the numbers sound right here. Considering the speed the WSM will drive a 130 gr slug , there should be alot more diff than 2 inches at 400......

I had the same thought.

According to Federal's website, if you compare a 140 gr accubond fired from both a 270 WSM and 7-08 with a 200 yd zero you get the following:

270 WSM 7mm-08

MV 3200 2800

200YD 0
300YD -5.6 -7.7
400YD -16.2 -22.3

Doug

(Edit- My neat chart didn't end up looking good, but the info is there.)

With a laser range finder and mil dot ect. The practical differences mean a lot less.

the single 7mm-08 I owned was the most accurate rifle I ever had. From 115 Speers to 139 Hornadys landed in the same 1/2 to 3/4 inch group at a 100 yards. Remington 788 with short barrel. It was deadly on prarrie dogs and Mule Deer.