Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
11-16-2008 | 06:12 AM
#21
Banned
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
11-16-2008 | 07:48 AM
#22
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 5
From: Eastern PA
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
Another voice of limited experience heard from. There's an old adage that goes "Change is inevitable - Growth is optional". This is also true with cartridges. The shorter fatter cases are more efficient than the older longer designs. I am not saying the 270 Win, 300 Win Mag and many of the other old reliable chamberings are obsolete. They can kill just as quickly today as they did when they came out. But today with the fatter cases and more efficient powders you can get the same results (or close to it) in a shorter action, usually lighter rifle then you could earllier. These WSM chamberings, whether you agree or not, are good chamberings. And most will be here for years to come.
I love my .270 Win and it has done everything I have asked it over the past 35 years and I won't trade it in on a 270 WSM. But I may have a 270WSM setting along side it in my safe some day. Maybe some day soon.
I love my .270 Win and it has done everything I have asked it over the past 35 years and I won't trade it in on a 270 WSM. But I may have a 270WSM setting along side it in my safe some day. Maybe some day soon.
11-16-2008 | 08:00 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,116
Likes: 0
From: VA, USA
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
Evidently a lot of people feel that there is enough gap to justifysome of the WSM's. A man could argue that the WSM's are not really that new and have actually been around quite some time. You only have to look at the .308 Win and the .30-06 Sprg. to see it was a similar concept.
There are plenty of things in life that are not "needs". Does a person really need a 500 horsepower car/truck when a 180 hp car/truck will get them from point A to point B and then back? I suspect some feel the need for these things just as some feel the need for WSM's.
11-16-2008 | 08:12 AM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 0
From: central Ky
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
The way I feel about the wsms is this: yes,they are of better overall design compared to longer,skinnier cases,no,it's not worth it to trade if you already have a good rifle in that caliber,yes,they offer a good choice IF you don't already have a rifle and are looking for 1. As to the other short mags,imo they won't be around in 20-30 years,most likely a lot less (as far as chambering factory rifles).
11-16-2008 | 08:28 AM
#25
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 5
From: Eastern PA
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
I agree totally stalkingbear. As for sticking around, I think the 300WSM will be here for a long time. Not so sure about the 325WSM. For some reason, Americans hate the 8mm bullet. A round in this never caliber seems to stick around (Remember the 8mm Rem Mag.? A great chambering that failed.) As for the 270 and 7mm WSMs, I think its a toss up. But I think one or the other will stick around.
11-16-2008 | 10:35 AM
#26
Banned
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
Evidently a lot of people feel that there is enough gap to justifysome of the WSM's. A man could argue that the WSM's are not really that new and have actually been around quite some time. You only have to look at the .308 Win and the .30-06 Sprg. to see it was a similar concept.
There are plenty of things in life that are not "needs". Does a person really need a 500 horsepower car/truck when a 180 hp car/truck will get them from point A to point B and then back? I suspect some feel the need for these things just as some feel the need for WSM's.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
Evidently a lot of people feel that there is enough gap to justifysome of the WSM's. A man could argue that the WSM's are not really that new and have actually been around quite some time. You only have to look at the .308 Win and the .30-06 Sprg. to see it was a similar concept.
There are plenty of things in life that are not "needs". Does a person really need a 500 horsepower car/truck when a 180 hp car/truck will get them from point A to point B and then back? I suspect some feel the need for these things just as some feel the need for WSM's.
The car analogy is not quite comparing apples to apples. The difference would be a 500 horsepower car and a 510 horsepower car. Is there an improvement? Only Jimmie Johnson could tell you the difference. I cant see where efficiency has anything to do with it. There is no gain in accuracy in the short mags. The gun has to be of a certain construction to handle the pressure, so the weigh is about the same. I still stand on marketing. If you understand marketing, you know that there are X amount of dollars that a hunter will spend. So by creating a buzz and getting buyers to feel they are losing out on something, you'll get them to spend money. The point is that they have not done anything better at getting 150 grains of lead to go 2,900 fps.
But that's just me. Mr. VAHuntr, should you be packaging steaks right now??
11-16-2008 | 02:44 PM
#27
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 5
From: Eastern PA
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
I think it all boils down to choice. I see no problem at all either with the WSMs or the old faithfuls. Each person has to make a choice. Same as if a hunter should shoot a legal forkhorn buck or hold out for a mature buck. The choice is solely up to him.
11-16-2008 | 05:47 PM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,116
Likes: 0
From: VA, USA
RE: Tikka T3 Light in 7mm08
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
The car analogy is not quite comparing apples to apples. The difference would be a 500 horsepower car and a 510 horsepower car. Is there an improvement? Only Jimmie Johnson could tell you the difference. I cant see where efficiency has anything to do with it. There is no gain in accuracy in the short mags. The gun has to be of a certain construction to handle the pressure, so the weigh is about the same. I still stand on marketing. If you understand marketing, you know that there are X amount of dollars that a hunter will spend. So by creating a buzz and getting buyers to feel they are losing out on something, you'll get them to spend money. The point is that they have not done anything better at getting 150 grains of lead to go 2,900 fps.
But that's just me. Mr. VAHuntr, should you be packaging steaks right now??
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
Evidently a lot of people feel that there is enough gap to justifysome of the WSM's. A man could argue that the WSM's are not really that new and have actually been around quite some time. You only have to look at the .308 Win and the .30-06 Sprg. to see it was a similar concept.
There are plenty of things in life that are not "needs". Does a person really need a 500 horsepower car/truck when a 180 hp car/truck will get them from point A to point B and then back? I suspect some feel the need for these things just as some feel the need for WSM's.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
ORIGINAL: vabyrd
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
There isn't a cartridge out there that WONT shoot sub MOA. But there are plenty of GUNS that cant. These groups in a hunting rifle are substantially more than adequate. The short mag theory is to find something wrong with the existing offerings, and sell it as new and improved. Take a 140 grain .27 caliber bullet and make it go a little faster. Now shove that into a different case than a typical 270 add a magnum primer, and convince buyers its their ticket to better hunting success. The idea was a smaller package that has more punch. The guns weigh the same. Bullet does the same amount of damage. The gain is selling the same amount of brass, lead, and copper plus a tad more powder for 2-3 times the price of its counterpart, and having a monopoly on it. The buyer pays more for the same ammo, and buys the same gun, then to top it off, the magazine holds one (or two) less rounds. The "rave" reviews are guys who write articles about guns for companies they want to be in good graces with, on the off chance they will get something for free. Then comes along Ruger and T/C. New guns with new offerings. Its called a superadequacy. Ever notice when a food item says "New look, same great taste? Whats the point? So maybe my experience with short mags is only limited to messing with someone elses 7mmWSM. I really only had about 10 minutes of experience with it. It took two minutes to figure out that it was a load of bull, and eight minutes figure out how not to hurt the owners feelings.
Marketing. You have to get them before they get you.
But each to their own, if you really want something that will help make a successfull hunt, buy good boots.
IMO the .270 WSM does haveits place. It is the only WSM(that I'm aware of) that does not duplicate the performance of a current cartridge. It seems to fills the gapbetween the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby. Whether or not this was an area that needed to be filled is a matter of opinion.
Thats kinda my point, is there really a gap?
Evidently a lot of people feel that there is enough gap to justifysome of the WSM's. A man could argue that the WSM's are not really that new and have actually been around quite some time. You only have to look at the .308 Win and the .30-06 Sprg. to see it was a similar concept.
There are plenty of things in life that are not "needs". Does a person really need a 500 horsepower car/truck when a 180 hp car/truck will get them from point A to point B and then back? I suspect some feel the need for these things just as some feel the need for WSM's.
The car analogy is not quite comparing apples to apples. The difference would be a 500 horsepower car and a 510 horsepower car. Is there an improvement? Only Jimmie Johnson could tell you the difference. I cant see where efficiency has anything to do with it. There is no gain in accuracy in the short mags. The gun has to be of a certain construction to handle the pressure, so the weigh is about the same. I still stand on marketing. If you understand marketing, you know that there are X amount of dollars that a hunter will spend. So by creating a buzz and getting buyers to feel they are losing out on something, you'll get them to spend money. The point is that they have not done anything better at getting 150 grains of lead to go 2,900 fps.
But that's just me. Mr. VAHuntr, should you be packaging steaks right now??
I will admit that the car analogy is a bit extreme.
Not packaging any steak right now as my feezer is still full from bow season and the first week of BP!
