.270 vs .270 WSM

[Bill Bunn III]

I have never shot the 270wsm but have killed many animals with the 270 win. The most impressive was a bull elk at 410 yards, I have taken everything from coyote, wild hogs, whitetail and elk. Had I not purchased a 375 H&H, I would have taken it to Africa for plains game. I would have to vote 270 win. I would agree that the 270wsm solved a non existent problem.

 

[IdaRam]

.270 Win - almost a hundred years old and going strong.
.270 WSM - just 16 years old (barely old enough to drive ), never very popular and fading fast. In another 16 years it may be easier to find ammo and brass for a .450 #2 than a .270 WSM...

 

[Rick Cox]

I had a 270 wsm and I felt it kicked way more than I liked. It was a hard jab and I sold it. I have no problem shooting my 375 so I think there is something about those short cases that seems to generate unpleasant recoil. Admittedly, I have a sample size of 1 but inexperience has never dissuaded me from having a campfire opinion

My Sako 85 270WSM using 140 gr. bullets recoils slightly less than my 3006 using 165 grain bullets. Weight is similar, but I think the 3006 weighs a little less.

 

[Rick Cox]

No not really. You are drinking the gun-writer Kool-Aid w/r to the .270 WSM. At most it has a 100 fps advantage with a crankier case to feed. The equals no meaningful advantage in the field at any range. The .270 has been built as beautiful, perfectly balanced rifles for nearly four generations. What is to fix? Like a number of "new" cartridges, the .270 WSM is a solution to a non-existent problem created to harvest gun buyers more than game.

Nosler lists the max load for a .270 140 gr. load as 3018 fps. They list the max load for a .270WSM with 140 slugs as 3237. A difference of 219 fps, which IMO is significant. The Weatherby .270 is rated at max as 3293 fps. with a 140 gr. slug. So the WSM and the Weatherby are close, where as the ol' 270 is left in the dust. It has a place, but it is not in the same league as the other two.

 

[Red Leg]

Nosler lists the max load for a .270 140 gr. load as 3018 fps. They list the max load for a .270WSM with 140 slugs as 3237. A difference of 219 fps, which IMO is significant. The Weatherby .270 is rated at max as 3293 fps. with a 140 gr. slug. So the WSM and the Weatherby are close, where as the ol' 270 is left in the dust. It has a place, but it is not in the same league as the other two.

In what league are you shooting what Rick? The .270 with 140 gr bullet will kill anything just as dead and just as easily to 40o meters as the .270 WSM - even granting you a 200 fps difference (most of my data shows an approx. 100 fps difference, but fine - I'll give you 200.) I am simply suggesting what's the point? It was a clever marketing development that is already fading from the market as consumers figure it out. But hey, go for it. I am absolutely certain the animal won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[MAdcox]

Saying a 270 Win “has a place” is like saying a 375 H&H is “ok, if you don’t have anything better”.

 

[IdaRam]

No dispute on the data, but nuthin’s free It takes 30% more powder to get there, which translates into more recoil and significantly less barrel life. The difference is 7 inches at 500 yards. If you really must shoot game at 500 yards with a .270, dial up another 1.5 minutes and the animal won’t be able to tell the difference.
And should a person want to sell their rifle... well there are a hundred buyers for the Win to every 1 who might consider the WSM.

 

[1dirthawker]

i had a 270 wsm.

it shot well, and was 150 ish fps faster. never owned a 270 win, but have recommended to 6-8 newish and young shooters.

the wsm was harder to find ammo for, spendy, did not feed as well. it did seem to kick a very little more than the 270 win i have shot. the gun, a stainless win mod 70 was a nice rifle but a bit heavy for the caliber. ended up selling it and got a 30-06 tikka t3.

the short mag is a nice idea, but in the 270, the extra juice you get was not really worth the squeeze. if i had to do over, i would have just bought the 06 and been done with it. with light bullets, the 06 shoots as fast as the wsm, and shoots heavy bullets well too.

 

[mdwest]

LOL. I've done it myself - remind me to post a picture of my 6.5 Creedmoor which performs suspiciously like my pre-war 6.5x57 mauser on a mannlicher schoenauer action (converted, in turn, from 6.5x54 which was already just about perfect as a 6.5 - ask Karamojo Bell). This has been going on a long, long time.

Its funny you mention the creed..

I've been thinking about a 6.5.. and was lured into looking hard at the creedmore based on all the marketing hype about how accurate they are, are the new rage for a "long range" gun, and the fact that half the people at the local range seem to be shooting them these days, etc..etc..

Then I woke up and realized "its really not any different than the 6.5 mauser... it has an almost identical ballistic profile".. (both shoot a 140gr 6.5 projectile about 2700fps).. and decided to look for a nice custom rifle in 6.5 sweed (still havent found one I really like just yet)...

 

[ChrisG]

Its funny you mention the creed..

I've been thinking about a 6.5.. and was lured into looking hard at the creedmore based on all the marketing hype about how accurate they are, are the new rage for a "long range" gun, and the fact that half the people at the local range seem to be shooting them these days, etc..etc..

Then I woke up and realized "its really not any different than the 6.5 mauser... it has an almost identical ballistic profile".. (both shoot a 140gr 6.5 projectile about 2700fps).. and decided to look for a nice custom rifle in 6.5 sweed (still havent found one I really like just yet)...

Find a mid-1990's Ruger MkII in 6.5x55. Mine is an absolute dream to shoot and after free floating and glass bedding, it is a tack driver! took a spikehorn with it last year. I was using up the last of my 120 grain TTSXs and the bullet penetrated pretty much stem to stern through the front leg, took off half the spine and exited just north of the rear leg bone. Total penetration just under 3 1/2 feet. Older cartridges really were designed by men who knew what they were doing! we are just standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[Goose Cracker]

I have a 270 WSM and its a shooter. I've taken pronghorn out to 350 with it. I wish I'd bought a 270 Win instead.

 

[Rick Cox]

In what league are you shooting what Rick? The .270 with 140 gr bullet will kill anything just as dead and just as easily to 40o meters as the .270 WSM - even granting you a 200 fps difference (most of my data shows an approx. 100 fps difference, but fine - I'll give you 200.) I am simply suggesting what's the point? It was a clever marketing development that is already fading from the market as consumers figure it out. But hey, go for it. I am absolutely certain the animal won't be able to tell the difference.

If you don't have a Nosler book but want to verify the velocities of these two rounds, they have a very useful component to their web site - click on "Load Data" . Reloading information on most commonly used cartridges.
Another useful site Gundata.org - lists tragetories. At 300 yards the WSM is traveling at 2627 (140 Accubond load - Federal) which the .270 reaches at 175 yards using the same ammo.
At 500 yards with a 100 yard zero, there is 10" of difference. But of course the penalty is more muzzle blast and recoil.
If 200+ fps difference does not make a round viable then we can dump a lot of rounds such as 300WM (versus 30-06) or perhaps .458 Lott versus .458 WM etc.
I really hummed and hawed very recently, trying to decide between the purchase of a .270 over a 7-08. Finally decided on the 7-08. Mainly because it is supposed to have less recoil, but also the shorter action makes scope placement easier. (I always have trouble getting my eye close enough. Must be the thick red neck...)

 

[Nosler guy]

I have never owned a .270 , or really been a fan of the calibre (and 6.5's even less) Every time I look at one, they just don't make sense, there is always a similair cartridge in 7mm (.284) that will do every thing and more than the same cartridge in .277 - with a much wider selection of bullet weights.

I've owned a whole raft of 7mm's in all kinds of configurations - so I'm going to play the game with .280 vs 7mm Short Mag (pretty much the same scenario as the .270 win vs 270 WSM) Not much to choose between the two, if I had to pick one or the other, I usually reach past the Short mag and the .280 gets to go hunting. Both shoot well, similair for accuracy, both like the same bullets, neither seems to do especially well with the heavy for calibre bullets. Like a few guys mentioned, those short fat rounds just don't feed as nicely, they are choppy, noisy and never as smooth as the full length guys. Sure I can load up the Short Mag a bit more, but when and if you need that, just reach a bit deeper into the gun cabinet and there is a full length Magnum there that will do that job even better, especially with heavy for calibre bullets (which I really like).

In fact the only reason that the 7mm Short is still in my cabinet is because its on a titanium mountain rifle platform, a real featherweight, - and maybe some day there may be that special mountain hunt, then the Short mag gets to go hunting...

 

[enysse]

I own two .27o Winchesters. One is a Browning BPS .270 Win that drives Swift-A Frames practically in one hole at 100 yds. My Remington 700 BDL 270 Win Mag was the first rifle I owned. The Remington rifle always cycled poorly and it often didn't pick a round up when cycling the bolt. That rifle was the driving force that moved me over to Ruger rifles that either by good luck or grace have functioned perfect for me. Can't complain about the 270 Win, I have killed a elk, 2 mule deer and whitetail all with one shot.
I did buy .270 WSM on impulse about 12 years ago. It had a stainless steel barrel and laminate stock. I liked the feel of the rifle and the price. It had a heavy barrel on it and I'm almost certain it will be a shooter. Necessary purchase, no way but I did pick a bunch of ammo for it for a song and a dance. I'm interested in shooting it when time allows.
That being said my 7mm Rem Mag is always my go to rifle and functions flawlessly........

 

[BeeMaa]

270WIN

The wife and I debated this very question along with 270WBM, 6.5CM, 6.5x55 for her first "deer" rifle.
Went with the 270WIN for many reasons, most listed above.
Ammo availability and price of ammo was big as we do not reload.
She shoots my 375H&H off sticks, knocking targets at 200 yards so I'm not concerned with her developing a recoil flinch.
140gr bullet will do the trick for deer/elk sized game within her self imposed 200 yard limit.

I personally haven't taken game with a 270WIN, but many deer fell at the hands of my Grandfather with his.
It is my opinion that the 270WSM is fading...fast, and with that ammo prices go up...I'm to cheap to have "specialty" rifles.

 

[MAdcox]

It is my opinion that the 270WSM is fading...fast, and with that ammo prices go up...I'm to cheap to have "specialty" rifles.

I think this is very accurate.
My uncle has a very nice Kimber he bought for his first PG hunt in 325 WSM. Its a great rifle and a very good round. Except now we can rarely find ammo for it and it is getting hard and expensive to get brass for reloading. The other WSMs seem to be going the same way. I have the same rifle in a 300 WSM. It seems to be catching on somewhat better than the others but is still more expensive to shoot and ammo is a lot harder to find and less selection than the WM.

 

[Dr Ray]

I don’t own a .270 WSM, but the .270 Winchester is (currently) my favorite cartridge for mule deer and down in N. America. Mine is a Nosler 48, and it absolutely loves 130 grain Accubond bullets. Last animal taken was a pronghorn at 200+ yards - hit, expanded , fully traversed the vitals before lodging in far shoulder. I understand that the .270 WSM is faster, but it’s also louder. I do have a .300 WSM, and I do like it, but I just like the full size rounds better. They feed smoothly and I like the longer action. I’ll go with my .300 Win Mag over the .300 WSM if that says anything!

I agree and my 270 is my most used rifle.

 

[gillettehunter]

I have owned both and taken many animals with both. Usually with 140-150 grain bullets. I don't have an accurate count but over a dozen elk with each and probably about as many deer and antelope. Jack O' Connor loved and wrote a lot about the .270. He used one a lot. He likely "sold" more .270's through his writings than anyone else.
Bottom line is either will do a good job if you do yours. I don't really notice much difference in recoil. I suspect that different stock and recoil pads make a difference here. When reloaded the WSM will give more velocity. Helps to insure that that the mono metals open better. If your using mono metals then the old addage that speed kills comes to mind. The only other edge then becomes for long range shooting where it is flatter. Yes you can dial up a .270 more and be fine. Just nice to have the extra range.
I never had feeding issues with my WSM. Some do and that is a PITA when it happens. For most hunting situations it will not make any significant difference. Ammo cost and availability make the plain Jane .270 a real winner.
Bruce

 

[Boyd Brooks]

History is full fad chamberings that didn't stand the test of time! I feel that the USM's and SM's will follow suit as they never offered any real advantage over the original tried and true cartridge. The same debate is going on in another thread about the 300WM and the 300WSM. The original is ahead 75% to 25%. I would pick the original 270 tried and true. Don't get me wrong, my safe has quiet a few oddballs, and I like each one. I do have to make my own ammo just to be able to be a little different.

 

[Chago]

I'm gonna repeat what I keep posting in these threads. What's better, blondes or brunettes???

These two calibers are identical in performance. And everyone... That's ok. There allowed to be the same. Just because the 270 came first doesn't mean the 270wsm is a waste or over rated etc. Remember just because you don't find a use for it. Others may, and both calibers are great. The major difference is you can squeeze 150fps of extra velocity. So to some long rang guys that's a big deal. Not just for hunting, remember not every gun owner is a hunter. Some just like to shoot. Also you get that in a short action rifle. Which in most factory brands can be as much a lb or more in rifle weight. I personally if found a rifle I really liked in either caliber I wouldn't say no just to get the other, if that makes sense.