The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

jmr40 · February 3, 2013, 01:35 AM

Part of the appeal of the entire line of WSM's is that they are more efficient from shorter barrels because the shorter cases burn powder more efficiently. No personal experience, but I know of one shooter who cut his 300 WSM down to 22" from 24". He lost 70 fps total. Another shooter who posts on another forum owns one of the 16.5" Rugers in 300 WSM and claims he is still getting 95% of the published ballistics, that would mean about 150 fps or so. I see no reason why the 270 WSM would be much different.

February 3, 2013, 01:35 AM	#2
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,805	Part of the appeal of the entire line of WSM's is that they are more efficient from shorter barrels because the shorter cases burn powder more efficiently. No personal experience, but I know of one shooter who cut his 300 WSM down to 22" from 24". He lost 70 fps total. Another shooter who posts on another forum owns one of the 16.5" Rugers in 300 WSM and claims he is still getting 95% of the published ballistics, that would mean about 150 fps or so. I see no reason why the 270 WSM would be much different.