Actually, you'll find that what you have challenged here, "go and use Hornady's Ballistic Catalog", is EXACTLY what I did in my previous post comparing the two Hornady Super Performance loads for the SST, the original 140grn you mentioned in YOUR post of their catalog, but compared to the 300WM SST Super Perf, rather than the standard.

No cherry picking, perfectly reasonable .270win and .300WM rounds, 140grn and 180grn, high BC with appropriate charge efficiency for both cartridges, AND the same bullet construction (SST), and the same product line (Hornady Super Performance)....

Straight off of Hornady's site right now... Same approx. drop and velocity at 500yrds, ~30% more ENERGY on the .300WM than the .270Win...

Hornady .270 Win 140grn SST Super Performance

Hornady .300 Win Mag 180grn SST Super Performance

It's ok man, you can let it go. It's plain and simple fact if what you said was true about matched trajectory, which it more or less is, then no, the Energy can't be the same, as the .300wm is doing it with~30% heavier bullet. That's simple physics...

I was comparing a 130 grain bullet from a 270 to a 150 grain bullet from a 300wm. Both bullets are designed to kill the same size game or have the same CXP2 rating ie.deer, black bear, etc..... Both bullets are mainstream and the most popular for CXP2 game. I probably should have said the 270 has more in common with the 300wn with CXP2 size game bullets.
The 300wm is certainly more powerful with the 180grain bullet.

You can keep mis-speaking and misrepresenting the truth here, but I'm going to keep calling you on it.

Without question, you cherry picked a SUPERPERFORMANCE ROUND and compared it to STANDARD LOADS. My last post compared the same bullet in the same product line, and you back-pedal...

To avoid some unwitting newbie from believing this line of bull, I present, yet again, another comparison of the same product line between the .300WM and the .270win, but this time with your own stipulation (CXP2 bullets in 130grn 270 and 150grn 300WM).



Again, using YOUR OWN stipulations, comparing HORNADY BALLISTICS CATALOG INFORMATION for 130GRN 270WIN VS 150GRN 300WM, but this time denying you the pleasure of cherry picking loads...

Yes, trajectory is pretty similar, no, the ENERGY, is NOT the same. Again, it's simple physics. Two bullets with similar profiles and similar velocities, but one heavier than the other, will give similar trajectories, but the heavier one will have more energy. The .300win mag has 25-30% more energy than the .270win. End of story.

Hornady 300WM SST

Hornady 270win SST

Next you'll tell me that a F-150 can pull as much as a semi-tractor too I suppose, simply because they're both driving 70mph?

I disagree but I don't want this thread turning into a caliber war. Perhaps on another designated thread.

Here's another constructive suggestion - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Just because you're the OP doesn't give you the latitude to publish inaccuracies at will and with no accountability. Sorry, that's just the way it is in the real world, too. Truly, many "discussions" here ARE a matter of opinion, and it's usually pretty clear when posters are representing opinions for what they are, rather than attempting to represent them as fact.

I used to know the Remington catalog like the back of my hand when I was a kid. I'd use logic along the lines of yours to explain to my friends why one caliber was better than another, irrespective of the fact that the other caliber WAS, in fact, effective. I don't think anyone here is questioning the abilities of the .270. Although I don't own one, its success in the field is undeniable. As far as opinion goes, I can't explain or understand the rage over the magnums when, as far as I'm concerned, the standards are every bit as capable - and much easier for the "occasional rifleman" to shoot well.

However, if you're going to compare apples to oranges and come up with a conclusion, expect some pushback. NM's chart above is where you should've started. SST - to - SST. Superperformance? All you added there was idea the standards could be stoked up and accomplish what a standard magnum load could do. So? What if you compared Superperformance to Superperformance? If you reloaded, you'd already know that, and probably suffered a few ruptured primers and maybe even a case failure or two in doing so. The question is, with the .270 as capable as it is, why are you trying to prove it's as "good" (as if numbers tell the whole story) as something else?

The physics are working against you if you want to look at numbers alone. You won't win and someone's going to show you Maggie's Drawers. And if you're going to control the variables, you can't "cherry pick" the way you did with the Superperformance .270. And although I used to cite them myself, I'm no longer a believer in "numbers" alone as a dominant measure of effectiveness on game.

It doesn't help that you spout your "qualifications." "I've been a moderator." So? "I shoot pistols." So? "I've read Jack O'Connor." So? None of those makes you an authority with this particular subject matter to the degree you portray yourself here. I suggest you get over yourself. Seems you can't post anything here without being challenged. I don't see that as the fault of the community, but a fault of the assertions and claims you're making. And here's another little something for you, none of us here has a claim to being an authority. We have different experiences. To the degree that we represent them accurately, this is a good forum.

Most people come here with nothing to prove. That doesn't seem to be true in your case.

Once again, the take away has still not been clarified.
That's it, stop over thinking it, there is nothing else to read into this. Its that simple. Newer loadings have bridged the gaps between standard calibers and traditional magnum calibers....its not a opinion, its a observation. Adding or reading into this any farther is just more cowbell.

I suppose I could also suggest why magnum calibers are normally calculated with a 26" barrel or what happens to a magnum caliber like a 270 Weatherby Mag if the barrel is cut down to 22" and what caliber it would then mirror but we will try to stay on topic. Its already starting to FEL like a caliber.......once again, perhaps on a new thread for discussion.

threads like these are the reason I post very little here, I know just a bit about rifles and ballistics, I have read enough inaccurate info on here that I could pick it apart piece by piece but then I would have my posts deleted, prolly be banned, and this incorrect info would still be here. If your gonna post your opinion as an undeniable fact, then have the proof to back it up (which you don't I assure you) so why get your underoos in a wad when you get called out? I know these guys from years of reading they're posts, they're not disagreeing with you just because they can, you need to consider that no matter where you are in your shooting carreer, there are more than likely folks who have already been there.
what you think means little to me, you already think you know it all, what concerns me are folks who read this BS and take it as truth, the only way the superformance ammo bridges a gap between standard and magnum rounds is because they use a blended powder that they think they can control well enough to toe the line on maximum saami specs and its not a sure thing, some of the superformance has already been discontinued, some of it is not even available in the us due to being over saami max pressures, every handloader out there today can match it if they wish cause when it comes down to it no matter what powder ya use pressure makes velocity, if you tailor a load that peaks pressure after the bullet is into the rifleing you will suffer shorter brass life but you can get numbers that will exceed even the superformace standards, but your over pressure, but the superformance ammo only has to last 1 round. I can, have and do outrun a 264 win mag with a 270 based parent case (by a lot) brass life is short but its not hard to do, the load is safe in my rifle, but not sure about every rifle on the market.
RR

This is the exact premise that my last two posts have been geared towards.

I 100% do not agree with this statement. Yes, there are 'high performance powders available that will push non-magnum cartridges to 'historical magnum levels', but equally, those same powders will push the magnum cartridges above and beyond their historical levels as well.

Making an observation that one 'magnum pressure' or 'advanced powder loading is equal in performance to a 'standard pressure', 'traditional powder', (let alone sub-opitimal) traditional magnum load, without considering the capabilities of the magnum cartridge given the same latitude (i.e. advanced powder) is 100% Cherry Picking.

At this point, your premise has been disproven. I have put forth data from your own source that proves it wrong, in two degrees. Continuing to push this logic is futile and childish.

Thank you for your opinion on the topic, it has been noted.

When I first came to this forum it was to ask opinions for some questions I had.


Over the time I have been here, I have learn who is in the know.


If you listen, it is often easy to tell the difference !


Thank you to all you guyz who I have come to "respect" (although don't ALWAYS agree with).