Author Topic: Advantages of Stainless over Traditional Blued (Read 3526 times)

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #30 on:** May 18, 2004, 04:57:59 PM »

Quote from: Braden

... Stay away from the Winchester Short Mags? I dunno. I too, believe that theyll be around for a while, but i also believe that they wont be as epensive in the future. They do have better ballistics than the standard cartridges, and more knockdown power...

Braden -

You would be hard pressed to find a ***practical*** difference between most of the WSM's and the standard cartridges over responsible huting distances. (My longest shot in 20+ years was 350 yards, which is about as far as I would consider, even though I practice out to 400. All others were under 215.)

More knockdown power? Same bullet at essentially the same speed = essentially the terminal energy. Once again, you will be hard pressed to find a practical difference.

And yes, the WSM's will probably decline steadily in price. In a few years they might even be the same price as standard cartridges. But until then, I would stick with the regular cartridges unless I reloaded (which I do).

But if the WSM's tickle your fancy, get one.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2004, 05:01:41 PM »

Rick -

I would have to go back and double-check, but I think all the Winchester WSM's are the same overall length as their counterparts. Might be an exception or two.

The only advantage I can think of is a shorter bolt throw.

Not knocking them, just haven't found a need for one in the safe... yet.

Braden · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2004, 05:16:11 PM »

Good points coyote hunter. I'm checking the ballistics now. THe 270wsm 1-6 inches flatter (depending on range) and hits from 200-400 lbs harder... how much real difference is that? Is there a big difference or hardly any?

Wolfe · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2004, 08:15:25 PM »

TBH the .270WSM is the only one that really makes practical sense to me. It certainly does more than a standard .270 and fills a void in the magnum market for that caliber. I know the weatherby is out there but they don't apply to the $5-600 rifle market. I guess there's the .264 mag as well however thats not a really popular cartridge either. I can't see as of yet what the .300's and 7mm's do that the existing .300's and 7mm haven't done for years. my $.02

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2004, 08:35:58 PM »

Quote from: Braden

Good points coyote hunter. I'm checking the ballistics now. THe 270wsm 1-6 inches flatter (depending on range) and hits from 200-400 lbs harder... how much real difference is that? Is there a big difference or hardly any?

Braden --

Among the .270/7mm/.300 WSM loads, the .270WSM is the only one that seems to have a real velocity advantage over their counterpart. So, depending on the factory load selected, you are correct. (I was surprised at this, by the way, as the 7mm and .300 WSM struggle to keep up with the 7mm Rem Mag and .300WIN.)

Here's a comparison of Winchester .270 WSM and Federal WSM and WIN loads, all zeroed for Maximum Point Blank Range for a 6" diameter target:

Code: [Select]


Cartridge  MFG    Weight  Bullet       Velocity   Zero/MPBR    300         400
                                                               Drop/FPE    Drop/FPE
.270WSM    WIN    140g    Accubond     3200fps    269/316     -1.9/2130   -11.3/1850
.270WSM    WIN    140g    Failsafe     3125fps    258/303     -2.8/1806   -14.1/1499
.270WSM    WIN    150g    Power Point  3150fps    258/302     -2.9/1760   -14.3/1438

.270WSM    FED    140g    Accubond     3300fps    278/326     -1.3/2275   - 9.9/1980
.270WSM    FED    140g    Bear Claw    3200fps    265/311     -2.2/1955   -12.4/1644
.270WSM    FED    150g    Partition    3160fps    266/313     -2.1/2208   -11.9/1912

.270WIN    FED    140g    Accubond     2950fps    250/294     -3.5/1788   -15.3/1544
.270WIN    FED    140g    Bear Claw    3100fps    258/303     -2.8/1824   -14.0/1530
.270WIN    FED    150g    Partition    2950fps    243/285     -4.4/1765   -17.4/1517

After doing the calculations, I'm going to agree the fastest .270WSM loads have a healthy advantage over the fastest .270WIN loads in the energy, range and bullet drop departments. If I was going to choose one of the above loads to hunt with, however, my first choice would be the Federal Bear Claw loads. Comparing the WIN and WSM versions for this bullet, the difference isn't that great.

That said, there is at least one more option you might want to consider if velocity, flat-shooting and manageable recoil are the name of the game -- the 7mm Rem Mag. It will push a 140g bullet to 3340fps, a 150g bullet to 3248fps, a 160g to 3112fps, and a 175g to 2970fps (Nosler 5th data). And it will deliver these bullets on target with a flatter trajectory and more retained energy than the .270WSM loads in similar weights. On the lighter side, the 7mm Rem Mag will push a 120g to 3562fps (Nosler 5th again) and a 100g to 3709fps (Barnes #2 data). That beats anything the .270WSM can do in bullet weights from 100g to 160g. In fact, the only place I know of where the .270WSM has a velocity advantage over the 7mm Rem Mag is with a 90g Sierra bullet at 3789fps, and the advantage over the 100g 7mm Rem Mag load is marginal.

Although not a sexy new cartridge, my 7mm Rem Mag 160g Grand Slam load at 2852fps penetrated through a big 6x5 bull elk at 350 yards, which is about as far as I am comfortable shooting big game. The bullet delivered 1571fpe (see .270WIN loads above) and dropped him in his tracks. To answer your question about 200-400fpe additional energy -- I could have taken the same shot with a Nosler 160g Partition at 3112fps, delivering an additional 572fpe with 5" less bullet drop, but it would not have been any more effective. Learn to shoot first, which means practice, practice, practice!

jvs · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2004, 11:42:36 PM »

Quote from: Rmouleart

The only thing I hear about the shortmags is that there barrel life is much shorter than full size carts and head spacing can be a problem when reloading, components are costly if reloading as well, I don't see much of a advantage other than a lighter rifle and of course a shorter action. Aim small hit small. RAMbo.

I must be too old fashioned because I still don't see a need for SAM's. Not for hunting purposes anyway. I believe a longer barrel and slower powders would be more beneficial rather than shortening the action. Barrel length and powder burn are very important factors in any caliber.

In my way of thinking, the gun manufactures don't have to be like Detroit and squeeze as much 'crap' in the least amount of space possible.

A very few of the SAM's may become popular but a majority of them will not turn out to be much more than dust collectors, very expensive to shoot or near impossible to find ammo or components for. On the other hand with all the new stuff coming out, I'm afraid some of the old 'stand-by' calibers may fall by the wayside. At this time, the .35 Rem cart is on a death knell.

oldelkhunter · « **Reply #36 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:23:56 AM »

[/quote]The only thing I hear about the shortmags is that there barrel life is much shorter than full size carts and head spacing can be a problem when reloading, components are costly if reloading as well, I don't see much of a advantage other than a lighter rifle and of course a shorter action.

Quote

They burn less powder then the corresponding long magnum how can they be worse on barrels when they are less overbore?

Braden · « **Reply #37 on:** May 19, 2004, 10:06:59 AM »

Those 7mm rem mags sure are hot... those ballistics are pretty persuasive. I dont know what their pricing is for t3s. What is this talk about the short mags being hard on barrels? Are they any tougher on them than a normal mag? I like the new SAM's, no matter what anyone says. I think theyre good products, even if the industry is making "unneccesary" products, which to a point is happening. I do believe that any way they can make cartridges more efficient and less expensive is a good change, and should be welcomed (if it happens).

Braden · « **Reply #38 on:** May 21, 2004, 11:20:08 AM »

Hey guys. I just found a Tikka Whitetail at my local Academy Sports. I It was about $579 i think. Pretty nice. I think im still set with the T3 though, as theyre cheaper. That Whitetail was pretty though. Anyone here have one?

longwinters · « **Reply #39 on:** May 21, 2004, 02:17:13 PM »

I have one in 243. I have ckd out the t-3 and prefer the whitetail hunter. I thought about possibly switching but all the t-3 rifles I saw were synthetic stock and generally speaking I prefer wood. IMHO

Long

Braden · « **Reply #40 on:** May 30, 2004, 06:38:59 PM »

Hey. A new sportsman's warehouse opened up in Garland and i got to compare the T3 Lite with the Stainless. I spent nearly 2 1/2 hours looking at rifles and scopes. They have the best, BEST PRICES ANYWHERE! Even better than Wal-Mart. THe prices are so low that the extra cost of the stainless is not even an issue any more. They sell it in a .270 Win for $479.99. I dont know about anybody else, but that is the BEST price I have found. I would definitely recommend Sportsman's warehouse to anyone here. If Im end up with the stainless, i might end up putting a weaver (instead of a Leupold VXII, imagine that) on it. Weavers Grand Slam Series seem to be excellent optics, and the one i picked up, a 4-14x40 in Silver, was unbelievably smooth. The rubber grips on the variable and focus adjustments are sooooo easy to hold and are sooooo smooth to operate, like the Tikka T3s bolt. A good match. The scope is not too, smooth, to the extent that any minors bump would rotate the variables. It's perfect. The reticle was very dark, and always black. Also, the two-tone nature of the scope looked amazing on the stainless. Can anyone validate the quality of Weaver's Grand Slam Series? (i.e. waterproofing, light transmission). I think its a good way to go, and the 270win will probably be enough for everything i hunt and will hunt, like elk. Its all in the shooter, right? Thanks for any input or thoughts you might have!

Braden

Yukon Jack · « **Reply #41 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:16:05 PM »

Braden,
I don't know much about the Weaver scopes built today, I'm sure they are good optics, though. You may want to consider the Zeiss Conquest line. They are 1" tube scopes and priced very reasonably. I think Zachary and several other members here at Graybeard's have them. I just picked one up to put on my 300 H&H (when it comes back), and I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the scope at the price it was offered. They are running around $350-$400 right now. Cheaper than Leupold's VXIII's. Eye relief remains constant while increasing or decreasing power. You don't need a screwdriver or coin to adjust windage and elevation either.

Like I said, it's still waiting to be put on a rifle, but my initial impression is thumbs up.

Braden · « **Reply #42 on:** May 31, 2004, 11:50:09 AM »

I did get to look over some other scopes at Sportsmans warehouse (which is in Louisville, not garland, what was i thinking), including the zeiss conquest, and also a kahles, vxII, and others. I was especially impressed with the Kahles, and zeiss. VERY GOOD OPTICS. And the weaver grand slam was quite good, as stated earlier. Also, the burris euro-diamond was very impressive. But, sadly, i have a champagne taste and a beer pocketbook. I would love to get a kahles or zeiss, but theyre quite expensive (which matches their quality, no doubt.) Ive got a lot of saving to do before i can afford one of those. The pricings on those optics were, as was the weaver and Tikka t3, much cheaper than any place else, so i may end up getting one of those more high-end scopes. I wish id have looked through a swarovski. Anyways... what do yall consider to be the minimum, average, and highest amount that you would spend on a scope that youll have for a while?

Braden

Braden · « **Reply #43 on:** July 08, 2004, 12:42:34 PM »

Hey its been a while since ive replied to this thread. I just bought a Leupold VX-III for $200.00, matte black, 3.5-10x40. Wow! what amazing optics! Anyways, which would it look better on? A Tikka t3 lite or t3 lite stainless?

longwinters · « **Reply #44 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:03:50 PM »

You are in trouble, cuz it will look good on either

Just go with the black rings and it will match great. That is a good price on the scope also. No doubt you will enjoy it.

Long

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 08, 2004, 04:17:39 PM »

I would get a 300 Win Mag blued. I have the Tikka Whitetail Hunter in 300 Win Mag blued and walnut stock and it looks great. I have a Leupold VaraXIII 3.5X10X50 on it. I like the look of the blue and walnut. I don't think the stainless looks good. That is just my opinion.

Braden · « **Reply #46 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:20:19 PM »

Sorry im not able to check this every day. Thanks for all you rinput guys. But back to my original question. Nothin thats been said so far has really swayed me in either the direction of a blued or stainless barrel. Reading what I have, the stainless doesnt seem like all that much better product than the blued barrel does. You hear everywhere about stainless/synthetic rifles being "All-weather" rifles for any occasion, but posts here seem to show otherwise. I kow everyone has opinions on this issue, so can someone try to sell me on their favorite and why? I tyhink both the stainless and blued versions of the t3 are functional and durable. I just need somethig thatll make me lean heavily towards one or the other. THanks for all your input. Im all ears to everyone.

BTW: This is the best outdoor forum out on the internet. Everyone here is friendly and gives good advice and information. Not all forums can say that. I appreciate all that have helped me out here.

7magWoodsman · « **Reply #47 on:** July 26, 2004, 05:21:31 PM »

I prefer blued myself. I don't like super shiny things glaring light all over the place while I am hunting. I have hunted in all types of weather and have never had a problem with blued guns. You still need to maintain both no matter what ,as I am sure you know, stainless is not a replacement for oil. In the end it is your choice and I agree stainless does look good in the house and on the range but I spend too much money on quality camo to draw attention to my rifle. Just my .02 cents...but what is MOST IMPORTANT is that you be happy and comfortable with it.
As far as chambering I always recommend 4 depending on the purpose .260rem(low recoil) 7mm/08(low recoil/enough power) 30'06(versatile) and 7mm Rem Mag.(my favorite)

Braden · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2004, 03:54:29 PM »

Does anyone have any experience with beartooth gun covers? yknow, the neoprene camo slipons for scope, barrel, forearm, and cartridge carriers on the comb. They seem like a good idea, at least to dull the appearance of a stainless barrel. plus they look sweet. Anyon have any of these beartooth products?

7magWoodsman · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2004, 04:09:10 PM »

I know someone who used one on a blued Savage and it got wet, he hunted with it a couple days without taking it off and when he did the blueing came off as well...but since you want it on a stainless rifle it should be fine.

longwinters · « **Reply #50 on:** July 28, 2004, 04:58:24 PM »

I really don't think you have to worry about covering up the matt stainless barrel on the Tikka rifles. I used my 7mm Sako in stainless and wood last fall for antelope. Not much has sharper eyes than antelope and no where is much sunnier than SE Wyoming. No problems with glare spooking animals . . . especially for the one I brought home with me. One thing you should consider though. I think that blued trigger assemblies are generally smoother than stainless ones are. Even though I have both my Sako triggers at the same weight, the blue is smoother. This also seems to follow with Remingtons that I have shot. Other than that I think it just depends on what color appeals to youl

Long

Rmouleart · « **Reply #51 on:** July 29, 2004, 03:40:25 AM »

When it comes to stainless, its too bright for hunting too many glares, animals take notice to them, I use Beartooths rifle cover kit, Its realtree camo, and fits like a glove, neoprene, even have scope cover to match, works very well, has a good feel as well, water proof also. Aim small hit small. RAMbo.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/horizontal-pod.jhtml?id=0009224&navAction=jump&navCount=0&indexId=&parentId=&parentType=&rid=&link=&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fcatalog%2Fpod-link.jhtml.1_A&_DAV=search

longwinters · « **Reply #52 on:** July 29, 2004, 05:03:08 PM »

Actually, I don't think you get any glare or shine from the Matte stainless barrels. I have been around them and used them for years and never saw it yet. These are a whole different animal than the old shiny stainless barrels.

Long

Braden · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2004, 05:54:15 PM »

I think so, too. looks more like a stick or limb in my neck of the woods, anyways...

Hey... how do you clean stainless barrels and keep them in good condition? THe ole oil for the blued guns aint gonna work here, so what would i need to get for the stainless? any special care i need to know about?

JCM · « **Reply #54 on:** July 30, 2004, 05:58:14 AM »

I agree with longwinters. The flat stainless even seems to have less shine or glare than some of my deep blued barrels. The color of the stainless is actually right there with the color of the grey hardwood limbs in some of the trees that I hunt out of. On the ground it the same as the limestone and hardwood trunks/limbs.

I hunt with both, and feel fine with both. I believe moving at the wrong time is what is seen. Glare aside, the finish of the gun just doesn't matter to much then.

JCM

longwinters · « **Reply #55 on:** July 30, 2004, 10:38:41 AM »

I treat it the same as all my blued barrels. A "Bore Snake" run thru during the season and after I quit shooting (which is only about 2 months during the hardest part of winter) I give it the clean and oil down treatment.

Long

Braden · « **Reply #56 on:** November 27, 2004, 07:44:13 AM »

Well yall... I did it. I found a Tikka t3 Lite in a 270Win. and bought it. Not many places are getting Tikkas from Beretta so Im glad I found this. Its got a blued barrel, so I guess that's the end of my questions. Hope others have some input and can learn from this forum. Thanks.