PDA

View Full Version : .270 Win vs. .270 WSM


hopeisnotastrategy
May 21, 2011, 06:04 PM
I thought I had settled on .270 as the caliber for my first rifle. I will be hunting throughout the lower 48 with Whitetail, Mule Deer, Black Bear, and Elk as my primary quarry.

Some buddies of mine have encouraged me to get the .270 WSM instead.

My concern is that I am going to spend a lot of time practicing at the range and want the weapon to be fun to shoot. I don't want excessive recoil and expense if it doesn't gain me a lot.

All that to ask this: Do I gain enough for my purposes to warrant the extra recoil and cost of ammo to justify the Short Mag?

Doyle
May 21, 2011, 06:09 PM
The biggest advantage of the WSMs is getting the same or a bit more power out of the same caliber in a short action. That makes the overall length at least an inch shorter.

BIG P
May 21, 2011, 07:38 PM
FOR your use IMHO the 270Win would be good,easy to get ammo,low recoil,flat shooting,good power,& would take all the game you have listed:D

bigghoss
May 21, 2011, 07:45 PM
I've never gotten into the short mag craze. I'd get the standard .270 winchester myself. like doyle said, the main reason for the WSM is the same round made shorter. but that also makes it fatter so a rifle that might hold 5 now drops down to 4 or even 3. not a big deal to most but something to consider. probably won't ever be able to cycle through 5 shots fast enough anyway.

ndking1126
May 21, 2011, 08:01 PM
As long as you are planning on keeping shots under 300, 400 yards the .270 will be fine. All these WSMs and RUMs are fine and dandy.. but expensive and usually not needed. Have you ever looked for used rifles? I see more used modern day hunting rifles in 7mm Rem Mag than any other caliber.. I guess people think they need the latest and greatest, but are unpleasantly surprised with how much recoil they have and how expensive they are to feed.

Not knocking the .270 WSM, though. I'm very interested in getting one too. From what I've read, the recoil is fairly similar to the .30-06 but with better ballistics across the board. With finances being tight, its just not a high enough priority right now.

Eagle0711
May 21, 2011, 09:04 PM
I'd take the 270 Win. Nothing more is needed, and it's cheaper to shoot.

The resale may not be as good with WSM. Been one for sale in the paper for a long time.

jimbob86
May 21, 2011, 09:14 PM
The WSM's are spendy now, and in 5 years, the brass will be made of unobtainium. Anybody know how to form these?

.270 WIN is as common as corn. If you can't find that in 5 stores within 15 miles of you, either there are not 5 stores there or you are in some hell hole like Chicago, NYC or Jersey.......

bigghoss
May 21, 2011, 09:54 PM
next time you go to a gun show walk in the door and throw a dead cat and see if you can't hit 5 savage 110s in .270win for under $300. I just bought one for my step-mom for $270 with scope last year. I'm planning on finding an old savage 110 long action and building a custom .30-06 on it. not hard or expensive, anyone could do it.

AllenJ
May 21, 2011, 10:14 PM
I am a huge fan of the short mags but IMHO you'd be better off with the 270 Winchester if you make sure to use good hunting bullets for elk and large blackies: Partitions, A Frames, or Barnes. SAUM and WSM are pricey to say the least and can be hard to find in smaller stores.

bamaranger
May 21, 2011, 11:44 PM
The whole "alphabet soup" of new cartridges that have hit the market in recent years leave me cold. WSM, RUM, WSSM, and what all else??

+1 on comments on ammo and case availability.

By a standard .270 and enjoy a classic.

uncyboo
May 22, 2011, 12:01 AM
the brass will be made of unobtainium.

next time you go to a gun show walk in the door and throw a dead cat and see if you can't hit 5 savage 110s in .270win for under $300.

Both of you made me laugh..............:D

Picher
May 22, 2011, 09:07 AM
The .270 Win is a fantastic cartridge...venerable or not!!! Handloading is a great idea, since it brings out the best it has to offer, but there's some great factory ammo being offered today as well.

The Sierra 90 grain bullet is really great for midrange target shooting, and my load shoots very close to the hotter 130 grain deer rounds at 100 yards.

Wyosmith
May 22, 2011, 09:24 AM
It should be pointed out that the original 30 cal “short mags" were conceived to give higher performance in Military length Semi-Autos. In other words, it was a way to get higher velocity from a 308 length box magazine. The other bore sizes were adaptations of the 30 cal.
The concept works very well for that purpose.

But in bolt actions, short mags are a perfect answer to a non-existent problem.

If you want to get a hunting rifle in a 270 WSM and you want to use an auto, the Short mage is not a bad idea. Browning and Winchester have both made them, as has Benelli.
But if you are going to buy a traditional bolt action, I would advise to stick with the old standard 270 Winchester. It lacks nothing.

I have choreographed the 270 Winchester with a 26 inch barrels against the 270 Weatherby in the same length barrel and run both at the same chamber pressures. I was shocked to find that I was never able to get a full 100 FPS more speed from the Weatherby over the Winchester unless I loaded to higher pressures in one shell over the other. In fact, using heavy loads of powder with 130 grain bullets, there were 4 loads I tested in which the 270 Winchester was within 25 FPS of the Weatherby, and one load where the Winchester beat the Weatherby by 3 FPS

I would have to guess the 270 short mag is going to give similar results. It can give high velocity and shorten the pressure curve a bit over the 270 Winchester (hence it’s suitability for autos)
It may “beat” the standard 270, but not enough to make me spend extra money on the brass.

My opening is this;
Bolt action-----270 Winchester.
Auto….maybe 270 Short Mag……(maybe!)

TXGunNut
May 22, 2011, 09:33 AM
I'd get the Win first and if that got boring I'd try the WSM. Problem is it'll probably be obsolete by then.

Rifletom
May 22, 2011, 09:52 AM
The .270 Win has been around since, what, 1925? A cartridge that age and PROVEN[re: 30-06!] is getting my field time, and does. Nothing wrong with theWSM's, just really do not see a need for a marketing idea that is no better than the original. Look what happened to the 7mmWSM. Poof. Gone.

natman
May 22, 2011, 10:34 AM
I'd recommend the 270 Win because ammo is cheaper and rifle selection is better.

However let's clear up some misunderstandings about the WSMs.

They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.

Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The 270 and 300 WSMs are popular rounds and are going to be around for a long time. The 7mm WSM failed because it was too similar to the 270 WSM, not because of any inherent flaw in the WSM concept. The various Remington rounds are failing because they are "me too" wannabes with no advantage over their WSM counterparts, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept.

TXGunNut
May 22, 2011, 10:39 AM
I was hoping a WSM fan would chime in. Things were getting a bit lopsided.

eyeball2
May 22, 2011, 01:39 PM
you have a chance to buy a 270wsm in a rifle that is as fast and flat shooting as my old 270 wby mag for half the price, 20% lighter weight, shorter action, and you don't know what to buy? and you may hunt elk? and you may shoot a long way? are you a aggie? i have to retire old betsy and re-spend again to get one of those. my bud has a winchester in wsm that shoots .5in. The short mag design should have been out 2 years after the 22-250 went public. i couldnt wait 30 years to get the perfect hunting rifle.

taylorce1
May 22, 2011, 02:15 PM
They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.

Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Yes there is a ballistic advantage of about 200 +/- fps with factory loads with the same bullets. Which only equates to around a 7" advantage in trajectory at 500 yards, and 2" of wind drift at the same range and 25 more yards of point blank range. It delivers 300 ft lbs more energy as well at that range (roughly 350 vs. 325 yards). All of this can be pretty easly compensated for except for the energy factor, all you need is a good range finder and a quality scope with repeatable adjustments.

As far as the handling qualities go, those are really hard to quantify. How much better handling is it 10-20% or more? I run short and long actions as well, but can't really see the difference in handling a 1/2" shorter action makes. Shorter barrels yes, my 20" or less barreled rifles handle much quicker than a 22" plus barrels.

I like the .270 and .300 WSM's and have played around with them a little. That said since this OP's first rifle and one that he'll be using with his son, I wouldn't step into the WSM right from the start. The advantages of the short mag will not be realized by the novice shooter/hunter right away.

Rob3
May 22, 2011, 03:44 PM
Used WSMs of all calibers seem to be a dime a dozen in all the gun stores around here. I think hunters get sticker-shock from the ammo prices real fast. Buy whatever you want, but research ammo cost and see if you can afford to practice with it.

armsmaster270
May 22, 2011, 05:30 PM
I have a 7mm WSM but ammo is not a problem for me I have 250 rounds of ammo and reloading dies. On subject of your question my Aunt took the #2 Boone & Crocket trophy Mountain Caribou in the 50's with a .270 with one shot.

fatwhiteboy
May 22, 2011, 05:51 PM
.270 win. I have taken pigs out to 220 yards using 130gr Corelokt ammo with my M70 in .270. I have complete confidence in the rifle and round....

intruder
May 22, 2011, 06:15 PM
If your using factory ammo it's going to be a lot more expensive to use the 270 WSM. You will find 270 on sale at any walmart. Not so for the 270 WSM. I also notice WSM are a little finicky to reload. I have a 300 WSM and a 25 WSM. You can get them to shoot but it takes a lot of tweeking.

PTS1
May 24, 2011, 11:24 AM
If you handload or plan to: Get the 270wsm.
If you don't or don't plan to: get the 270 win.

I have a Vanguard in 270wsm and it is the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. I also handload, so that is why I will never get rid of it. However, there is nothing the wsm can do that the win can't do, except that you have to be about 30 yards closer.

Saltydog235
May 24, 2011, 11:38 AM
As others have said, get the 270 Win if you plan on finding readly available ammo. The WSM and all the others of its kind don't offer any distinctive advantages over the tried and true standards. Like many other new whiz bangers it was a way for the manufacturers to increase sales for the latest and greatest. They created a buzz and a following but based on history, they'll fall from popularity pretty quickly. Honestly, I seriously doubt that the animal or target on the other end is going to know the difference but your wallet will. I really believe that these are fad cartridges that are going to be harder and harder to find as time goes on, the .270 Win will always be around.

I use to be a Magnum Hound but I've realized that they have applications only when the shots are at distance and that most shooters of them never fully realize their uses where a standard will do the same. In fact my 7mm-08 is better suited to the whitetails and hogs we hunt than my 7mm Mags are.

Rifleman1776
May 24, 2011, 11:39 AM
The real reason for the short mags was to reduce manufacturing time, expenses and inventory for the manufacturers. They can make more short actions, save a little steel and put out a greater variety of calibers with same/similar actions.
Doing that allowed marketing geniuses to come up with statements that suggested magical performance from a shorter cartridge.
Oh, and charge more.
But, for what you want, I would go with 30-06, especially for the black bear and elk. Close second choice, .308 and you would get a shorter cartridge.
Really, it is a matter of choice but I like the greater versatility of the 30 cals.

taylorce1
May 24, 2011, 12:34 PM
The real reason for the short mags was to reduce manufacturing time, expenses and inventory for the manufacturers. They can make more short actions, save a little steel and put out a greater variety of calibers with same/similar actions.


If that were the true reasons then the manufacturers would stop making all long actions. Plus the tooling up to make the other parts to allow the WSM cartrdige to function in a short action is no small expense. The truth is it was another product to offer in their catalog, and to pay the gun writers to proclaim it as the new wonder cartridge/s to get the masses to purchase them. The reason for this is, if the only chambering offered was .270 Win or .30-06 how many of each would you own?

chewie146
May 24, 2011, 01:57 PM
The .270 will do fine on all the above mentioned, and I do mean the .270...not that new stocky little mutant. Plus, the .270 Winchester will give you more ammo for far less money.

ndking1126
May 24, 2011, 04:25 PM
Nothing wrong with using what's proven. My hunting rifle is a 30-06, so trust me I like using what works.

But the flip side of that is even though the WSMs and other similar alphabet calibers don't have a huge ballistic advantage, its still an advantage. Progress doesn't always comes in leaps and bounds. Sometimes its multiple small steps. I for one am glad we still aren't driving Model Ts around because I like having a DVD player in our minivan so my daughter doesn't drive us crazy while on long road trips.

So don't give people who buy the latest and greatest too much grief because they are financing progress is how I see it.

Horseman
May 25, 2011, 06:53 AM
The "handier short action" arquement is B.S. on some guns. Some mfg's put a 2" longer barrel on the WSM's so the gun is actually longer than a long action 270 Win. Also I've had a 300WSM Kimber and 270WSM Sako that each had feeding issues with the short fat case. There was a reason for the shape of the 30-06 case. They knew it would feed reliably.

natman
May 25, 2011, 06:58 AM
The "handier short action" arquement is B.S. on some guns. Some mfg's put a 2" longer barrel on the WSM's so the gun is actually longer than a long action 270 Win.

Compare a short vs long action Browning BLR and you'll notice the difference. There's more to handling than overall length. It's a question of balance. Shotgunners spend thousands of $ to get it just right and although it's not as crucial on rifles it's still worth considering.

warbirdlover
May 25, 2011, 09:55 AM
If you don't reload get the .270 Win. HUGE difference in ammo prices. HUGE. And you can always find .270 Win ammo. Not necessarily true for .270 WSM. The short mag fad is dieing out.

Doodlebugger45
May 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
I have a 270 WSM and like it a lot. Would I recommend it to a person who doesn't reload? Absolutely not. I bought it because I got a steal of a deal on it. The scope that was mounted on it was worth the price alone. Why did I get such a great deal? Because the guy who originally bought it was a new shooter who just had to have the "best" he could afford that day. Then he found out how much the ammo cost! :) For me, I can load up 270 WSM cartridges for the exact same price as 270 Win. Is it THAT much better? Nope. But it is cool! :)

Actually, I got a fantastic buy on an almost new Browning BLR in .325 WSM for the same reason and I like it a lot too.

But absolutely for the first rifle or a non-reloader, DON'T do it. Get a regular ole 270.

Horseman
May 25, 2011, 06:44 PM
Compare a short vs long action Browning BLR and you'll notice the difference. There's more to handling than overall length. It's a question of balance. Shotgunners spend thousands of $ to get it just right and although it's not as crucial on rifles it's still worth considering.

That's my point. I prefer a standard length 22" barrel with a long action rather than a 24" barreled short action gun. Neither of the 2 wsm guns I've owned were handier than the same model gun in a long action. Dunno about BLR's. My opinion is based on bolt actions.

hopeisnotastrategy
May 25, 2011, 07:57 PM
I won't hunt black bear very often, but if I do, would .270 be sufficient? As opposed to the 270 WSM?

uncyboo
May 25, 2011, 09:29 PM
Yes the 270 should be fine black bear medicine.

Eghad
May 25, 2011, 09:33 PM
I have .270 and .30-06. These have worked fine for years. I looked at the Win short mags but couldnt really find a good reason for going to one.

Cleet
May 26, 2011, 06:49 AM
I have a .270 WSM and love it. Where I hunt it is not uncommon to have 300 yards shots. However, as many have said, the ammo is expensive.

taylorce1
May 26, 2011, 11:02 AM
I have a .270 WSM and love it. Where I hunt it is not uncommon to have 300 yards shots.

Same here but I don't have any problems killing game at that distance with the plain old .270 & .30-06 and even some smaller cartridges. If you have everything correct (range & velocity data from your rifle), distance is easy to compensate for. Energy is the only advantage that I see, the WSM delivers more of it to the target at all distances.

sc928porsche
May 26, 2011, 11:12 AM
I have not been much of a fan of the short mags. The standard mags work well enough for me. I also believe that the 308 would have never been as popular had it not been for its adoption by the military and in fact I still prefer the old 06 to it. Maybe its because I am old and have a tendancy to resist change.

700sage
May 27, 2011, 09:58 PM
I currently own two .300WSM's. The advantage of them over a standard .308 is plain to see when you shoot out to or beyond 300 yards. I would also like to address the data that the reloading books provide for handloads. Every one of them is drastically reduced. The WSM's are capable of so much more especially with the newer powders being released. It's not uncommon to get 3150fps out of a 180 grain bullet. The 165grain bullets are getting between 3250 and 3300fps. Compare this to a standard .308 where a max load with 165 grain bullets will result in only 2800fps. An improvement of 450fps and much more energy! Another thing I've noticed is that working up loads seemed easy. Just about everything shot under an inch and my final loads after 3 trips to the range were under a half inch in both guns.

That being said, I don't have any experience with the .270WSM, though I want to. I suspect that the factory load data is similar to what I found with the .300WSM, understated. I would bet money that I could work up a safe load that would push a 140grain Nosler Ballistic Tip at 3250-3300fps. That's still 250-300fps more muzzle velocity than the standard .270. Muzzle energy in the standard old .270 starts out at 2798 vs. the .270WSM at 3284. That's over 400 ft/lbs of energy difference. At 400 yards the difference is 1527 vs. 1822. Still nearly 300 ft/lbs difference! The nice part about the .277 caliber is that it retains energy downrange due to it's high Ballistic Coefficient (BC). So the more you generate at the muzzle, the more it will have downrange.

The question really becomes, do you believe this extra energy/velocity is worth it? Well, if you're going to handload the price will be virtually identical. Brass may be a bit more expensive for the WSM but brass isn't a large expense. The WSM will use a bit more powder but once you settle on a load and buy in bulk the price per cartridge will be fairly inexpensive. Primers are the same as well as the bullets. Personally, I believe that a .270 with the proper bullet and good shot placement are fine for anything on the North American continent. However, I consider it marginal for some of the larger game. That is to say it wouldn't be my preferred gun for hunting elk. I would, in that case, select something with more energy. The .270WSM does exactly that.

I would select the WSM but that's because I'm comfortable with the recoil from much larger, more powerful, guns. What should you select? I can't answer that for you. The safe thing to do would be to buy a standard .270 and if you ever got a chance to go elk or bear hunting use the excuse that the .270 is a borderline gun for those types of game to convince the other half to allow the purchase of another gun more suited to those purposes. At that point the .270 would become a backup gun that would be capable of getting the job done in a pinch. Can't beat that solution!

taylorce1
May 28, 2011, 10:30 AM
That being said, I don't have any experience with the .270WSM, though I want to. I suspect that the factory load data is similar to what I found with the .300WSM, understated. I would bet money that I could work up a safe load that would push a 140grain Nosler Ballistic Tip at 3250-3300fps. That's still 250-300fps more muzzle velocity than the standard .270. Muzzle energy in the standard old .270 starts out at 2798 vs. the .270WSM at 3284. That's over 400 ft/lbs of energy difference. At 400 yards the difference is 1527 vs. 1822. Still nearly 300 ft/lbs difference! The nice part about the .277 caliber is that it retains energy downrange due to it's high Ballistic Coefficient (BC). So the more you generate at the muzzle, the more it will have downrange.

I won't take your bet, because I know every rifle is different. To push a 140 grain bullet as fast as you think you can would be dangerously over pressure IMO for the .270 WSM. With your knowledge of the .308 and .300 WSM I can see where you might jump to the conclusion that the .270 WSM will best the .270 by a large margin. One thing to take into consideration with the .270 Win is that it already pushes bullets at "Magnum" velocities. For years the only commercial cartridge to best it was the .270 Weatherby, but it had to burn large volumes of powder to do it.

There are some published loads that will get a .270 Win to 3000 fps with a 140 grain bullet. I've yet to find published data that will get a .270 WSM to 3200 fps. I'm not talking about some "pet" load a guy put on the web. I'm talking bullet and powder manufacturers pressure tested load data. I checked Hornady, Sierra, Nosler, and Hogdon data that I have on hand.

As I stated in an earlier post the best you can ever expect is around 200 fps and 300 ft-lbs more energy at the most out of the .270 WSM and this is only with the heavier bullets. With lighter bullets <130 grains the .270 WSM is only able to best the old .270 by about 100 fps at most. If you ever get a chance read what P.O. Ackley had to say about the .270 Win, basicly he said the .30-06 case was the optimum size for the .277 bullet.

FM12
May 28, 2011, 10:43 AM
Get a 30-06 and be done with it.

batmann
May 28, 2011, 04:41 PM
I am a fan of the .30-06 family, so my vote is for the .270 over the WSM. One thing to consider is ammo availability. Almost any gun shop will have ammo for the .270, if for some reason you need it. Walk into a very small mom and pop store and ask for a box of .270 WSM. Enough said.

Slamfire
May 29, 2011, 01:49 PM
Yes there is a ballistic advantage of about 200 +/- fps with factory loads with the same bullets. Which only equates to around a 7" advantage in trajectory at 500 yards, and 2" of wind drift at the same range and 25 more yards of point blank range.

Yes, yes, all true. However I am of the opinion that shooting beyond 400 yards with hunting cartridges is unethical. The probability of instant death to the animal is low and people are highly likely to injure an animal which will run off and die an agonizing death. Death due to infection is horrible for man or beast. For 99% of the shooting population, 300 yards ought to be the max.

I am lucky to shoot almost every weekend of the year in some sort of rifle competition. Yesterday I arrived at the 600 yard stage at a range I have shot so many times that I have data books full of zero’s and data. I shot a rifle which I had a good 600 zero, my sighting shots were with ammunition which I had data, and used before at that firing line. I took my best guess of windage, and yet my first sighting shot was in the eight ring. That is 24 inches away from the center of the target. http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w04.pdf

I ended the match with only 1.5 MOA of wind right, which is about 9 inches, wind however varies between shots and people who don't shoot on paper don't appreciate just how much bullets move due to wind. People who don't shoot on paper don't appreciate how much point of impact changes due to position. Yesterday I was squadded with a F Class National Champ and we discussed how often we can correct off center shots with a positional change. (conversely, perversely, how often a good score is blown because of a positional change.)

Since hunting involves unknown ranges, unknown wind, with rifles that don’t have 66 fouling rounds through the tube by the time you take your first long range shot, there is a low probability of acheiving a quick kill at long range.

Out to three hundred yards there is very little difference in trajectory between a 270 Win and 270 WSM. The 270 Win with a 130 is an outstanding round at 300 yards and you can buy ammunition everywhere. I have three 270’s, not one 270 WSM. While the count of 270’s may increase, the number of 270 WSM’s will stay the same.

mdd
May 29, 2011, 03:45 PM
700sage, I would encourage you to step lightly on this forum when advocating loads above published recommended max. I've found out the hard way there is little tolerance for the dispersion of unsafe information to masses via this forum.

As for the discussion at hand, I like "new" stuff as much as anybody (although ironically I can't seem to move past the skeleton stocks ruger quit making in the 90's:confused:). I have a 270 win and have researched the 270wsm a little bit. For my purposes there is not a distinct enough advantage to own both. I've never really gotten into the long vs. short action debate. It's a red car vs. blue car debate....all personal preference in my opinion. I shoot both long & short and appreciate things about both. I already have the 270 & the 25-06 in the same platform and prefer the lil-06. For my hunting it fits perfectly & has never let me down. However, I keep eyeing the 30-06 in the same setup just to complete the trifecta:D

700sage
May 29, 2011, 04:54 PM
"700sage, I would encourage you to step lightly on this forum when advocating loads above published recommended max."

I can only speak from experience when talking about loads. In my experience the books are wrong nearly every time as to what a max load is. I don't advocate starting at the levels that I talk about. I always start with book data and work up. Usually I will start to notice ejector marks on the case first. Then the bolt will get hard to lift. If you are working up loads slowly as you should be you will notice these things and back off just below the signs. In my experience I've been able to push beyond the book data with every gun I've ever owned (this includes 21 bolt action rifles). We must remember that book data is intended to operate in every gun ever designed in that particular caliber. This means that no book can tell me what max loads are in my gun. The books are a guideline to get you started, nothing more. I won't use them as hard and fast data because, as you say, every gun is different. Again, all I can do is speak from experience. Every gun I have ever loaded for beat the book levels. I have never had a handload suddenly blow up or do anything remotely dangerous. We have to remember that increasing loads slowly, nothing bad will just suddenly happen. There are warning signs before you really get to a dangerous level where the round might actually cause some damage. More than likely if you ignore these signs with a bolt gun the worst that will happen is a stuck bolt.

I will be the first to admit that the loads I use are hot. They are designed for my gun, and my gun alone. I always suggest starting with book data and working up a load specifically for your gun. This is how I was taught and how I have gotten all of my loads for my various guns. I don't stray from the process because you never know. One of these days the books may be right.

mdd
May 29, 2011, 05:10 PM
Keep in mind I wasn't arguing with you at all or denigrating your procedure. I was simply offering a bit of "sage" advice regarding how I was treated when discussing a load above book max. It is generally frowned upon by the staff with the occasional middle finger 'thunk' to the head like everyone used to get from their old man.

Btw, a fellow TFL'er by the handle of cornbush had an alarming experience recently with a massive overpressure situation. Thankfully for him it was housed in arguably the strongest action on the market (ruger) and the personal injury was limited. The rifle was ruined but at least he didn't have to stop the rearward thrust of the bolt with his face.

There's still so much I don't know about reloading, but at the same time I am not green to it. I've often found the best repeatable accuracy in my rifles is obtained below the max book load. Your mileage obviously varies in that regard which is understandably why you're a proponent of hotrodding them a little bit. To each his own; just wanted to let you know my experience here.

Cheers!

xdshooter
May 29, 2011, 05:18 PM
walk in the door and throw a dead cat

That's actually a good idea! I haven't thrown a dead cat in ages!

And I would go with the .270 WIN if it were me.

700sage
May 29, 2011, 06:30 PM
I appreciate the advice. I have often been told by people that they attain max accuracy at below max pressures. I have not always experienced this. My 7mmMag loves to be shot hot. It puts up 3/4" groups at 200 yards with a load that is just showing signs of pressure on summer days. For this reason I only shoot the gun in the winter, LOL! Regardless, I don't do much shooting in competition so most of my loads are intended for hunting. Because of this I try and squeeze every ounce of energy out of a gun that I can. As long as accuracy stays below 1" at 100 yards I'll accept the load if it benefits me in energy over a more accurate load. I have found that I like to find a powder that will give me at least 98-99% load density without signs of pressure. This, for me, has been a thumb rule for accuracy in just about every weapon I own. There are a few exceptions like a marlin 336 in .35 remington that I squeeze 3031 into at over 100% load density. The gun just likes a compressed load, but that's rare. Anyhow, great to hear about other peoples experiences and good talking to ya.

Kentucky_Rifleman
May 30, 2011, 04:13 PM
Lately I've been seeing an awful lot of the super-duper-mushroom-magnum rifles for sale CHEAP at the gunshows.

To be honest, the ballistics aren't much different, and I squeeze my .270 brass out of mil-surp .30-06 cases for 10 - 15 cents a case. My old Remington 721 will hold 1 inch groups at 200 yards with hand-loads.

I can see the (to me SLIGHT) advantage of the shorter action, but the WSM cartridges are just so damned ugly.

You'd have never caught Hemingway pulling one of those things out of his cartridge pouch. :barf:

KR

Big Bill
May 30, 2011, 04:40 PM
All that to ask this: Do I gain enough for my purposes to warrant the extra recoil and cost of ammo to justify the Short Mag?In a word - no! I had a 270 WSM, but the slight improvement wasn't worth the expensive ammo price. And, it was harder to get than regular 270. A standard 270 will work just fine for what you intend to use it for.

taylorce1
May 30, 2011, 08:51 PM
Yes, yes, all true. However I am of the opinion that shooting beyond 400 yards with hunting cartridges is unethical.


I never suggested the OP shoot to 500 yards on game when I gave the data. I was merely summarizing easy to find ammunition data. Most manufacturers list their data out to 500 yards, I could have easily shortened the distance, but I didn't.

As far as ethics go I usually try to stay out of that battle since there is never a winning side to that battle.

jimbob86
May 31, 2011, 07:33 PM
I'd recommend the 270 Win because ammo is cheaper and rifle selection is better.

However let's clear up some misunderstandings about the WSMs.

They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.



Sounds like a severe case of PII (Preoccupation w/ Inconsequential Increments) .....

Any deer or black bear would not have a clue whether the .277 bullet that killed it was launched by a .270 WIN or a .270 WSM. If you don't handload, your wallet will be the only one to notice. If you do handload, then the ballistic difference between the two is even smaller...... and you are still paying through the nose for brass, so long as they keep making it......

The question still stands: Anybody know how to form this brass out of a more commonly available case?

Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.



"Handling" is more a function of familiarity with your firearm than length/weight/balance. The only time I could imagine a long barrel being a problem is dismounting a vehichle quickly ..... a non-issue for me, when hunting.

As for the sliced bread analogy, it would be apt if they were charging you $5.00 a loaf for the presliced stuff, and you bought it anyhow. ...... those of us that bake our own have no problems operating a bread knife, either.

natman
June 1, 2011, 04:54 AM
I'd recommend the 270 Win because ammo is cheaper and rifle selection is better.

However let's clear up some misunderstandings about the WSMs.

They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.
Sounds like a severe case of PII (Preoccupation w/ Inconsequential Increments) .....

Any deer or black bear would not have a clue whether the .277 bullet that killed it was launched by a .270 WIN or a .270 WSM. If you don't handload, your wallet will be the only one to notice. If you do handload, then the ballistic difference between the two is even smaller...... and you are still paying through the nose for brass, so long as they keep making it......

The question still stands: Anybody know how to form this brass out of a more commonly available case?

Might I point out that I recommended the same cartridge, the 270 Win, for the same reason you did, ammo cost?

The 270 WSM launches the same bullets about 200 fps faster than a 270 Win. That's enough of a difference to fit definition of "It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist." That’s only 50fps less than difference between the 30-06 and the 300 Win Mag. Do you plan to accuse anyone who shoots a 300 Win Mag of having a "severe case of PII (Preoccupation w/ Inconsequential Increments)"?

A more apt comparison would really be short action cartridge to short action cartridge. Comparing a 308 to a 300 WSM, the WSM gets about 400 fps more. Is that a Sufficiently Consequential Increment?

Even though you don't own one, the 270 and 300 WSMs are popular cartridges and brass isn't going to disappear anytime soon.


Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"Handling" is more a function of familiarity with your firearm than length/weight/balance. The only time I could imagine a long barrel being a problem is dismounting a vehichle quickly ..... a non-issue for me, when hunting.

As for the sliced bread analogy, it would be apt if they were charging you $5.00 a loaf for the presliced stuff, and you bought it anyhow. ...... those of us that bake our own have no problems operating a bread knife, either.
Clearly you are not among those who appreciate the short action concept. As I said, it's not going to appeal to you then.

taylorce1
June 1, 2011, 08:02 AM
The question still stands: Anybody know how to form this brass out of a more commonly available case?


All the WSM cases were designed off of the .404 Jeffery. You would be hard pressed to find cheaper brass than buying the Winchester WSM cases. Last time I checked .404 brass wasn't very common, plus I don't know of any other commercial cases off the top of my head that share the .404 parent.

If you were able to find a good deal on 7mm, .300 or .325 WSM brass then you could form from that. IIRC the .270 WSM shoulder is a little farther forward so you would be fireforming all the brass. So I'd probably use the .300 or .325 case so I could create a better false shoulder for head space. You might have to turn the necks as well going down from these cases.