270 Wsm

[Kaw 750 v-twin]

I'm thinking about getting a 270 WSM for hunting deer. Would this caliber be a good choice. I would have shots up to 300-400 yards? And also what would be a good rifle model to choose with this caliber? I was wanting a Rem 700 but they don't have many in that caliber.

[taylorce1]

Where are you hunting that you will be able to hunt at that ranges. I hunt a lot on the plains of eastern Colorado where long shots are always a possibility. A plain old .270 Win will reach those distances that you are talking about and have plenty of power to kill a deer and do it cheaper than the .270 WSM. The people who I know with the .270 WSM swear by them but I'm too stubborn to give up my .270 Win.

If you are not going to reload then I wouldn't go with the WSM, as I feel it is too expensive to practice with on a regular basis. I see the ammunition starting around $25 a box for the WSM and $12 for the .270 Win, twice the shooting for the same money. For shots beyond 300 yards you will need a lot of practice to become proficent at hitting a deer in the vitals from field positions.

[Fat White Boy]

+1 on the .270 Win. Mine is a Model 70 with a Nikon BuckMaster 3-9X40. Using Corelokt 130gr from Walmart, it shoots cloverleafs at 100 yards. I use it on wild boar/hogs, whatever. The rounds go right through them. I don't know why you would need a WSM.

[onlybrowning]

Many want shortmags for the short action. It makes a difference to some people. I wish my A bolt that has been customized was a WSM, not a long action.

[ActivShootr]

I heard that the short mags are harder on barrels that their taller brethren. Anyone know if this is true or not?

[taylorce1]

Many want shortmags for the short action. It makes a difference to some people. I wish my A bolt that has been customized was a WSM, not a long action.

The OP didn't give us much background on his familiarity with hunting and firearms. I made my suggestion based on that he is probably new to the sport. The .270 Win offers more variety of factory loads cheaper than the .270 WSM. This will let him get more practice time in and make him more proficient with his rifle.

I haven't seen where the .270 WSM or any WSM for that matter is better than what was already out there. It still takes the .270 WSM 5-7 grains more of powder to get 100-200 FPS faster than my .270 Win in the same grain of bullet. It only shoots 3" flatter at 400 yards and 5" flatter at 500 yards. All this gained performance does is double the price of the ammunition. Plus give me the reasons why a short action is superior to a long in hunting situations. Short actions limit the bullets you can use IMO. It is kind of hard to use the heavier grain bullets when they are eating up your powder coloum to fit the cartridge in the action.

If you can't hunt it with the .270 Win you can't hunt it with the .270 WSM. The .270 Win is adequate for all animals in the lower 48 same as the .270 WSM. I've taken prairie dogs, pigs, pronghorn, mule deer and elk with the .270 Win and wouldn't be afraid to take black bear or moose with it either.

If the OP is new to hunting and hunting rifles like I think he is, I could never recommend a Magnum as their first rifle. Magnum hunting rifles developer bad habits, inexperienced shooters should not start out with a Magnum as their first hunting rifle. I would hate to see this person develope a flinch that could take a long time to unlearn.

[FirstFreedom]

The .270 WSM is not a bad cartridge at all, and an excellent long range choice. But I'd still get the classic, traditional .270 win instead because it has 90-95% of the ballistics, and will always be around - the .270 WSM may or may not survive the test of time. Plus, .270 win ammo is cheaper.

[mikejonestkd]

Another +1 on getting a plain old vanillia .270 winchester.

more ammo choices,
shoots plenty flat and hits plenty hard out to any realistic deer hunting range,
less recoil from the same weight rifle,
If you can't hit it with a .270 win then a .270 wsm isn't going to make it any easier,
cheaper to shoot factory ammo,
slightly cheaper to reload,
The .270 has been around since IIRC 1925 and will still be here 50 years from now, you can't say that with confidence about the .270wsm,
Jack O'conner loved his, need i say more?

[Art Eatman]

"I heard that the short mags are harder on barrels that their taller brethren."

Probably just the opposite. It's common for the comparison to be 10% less velocity for 20% less powder. I doubt the burn temperature would be appreciably less, but the burn time would be less.

Art

[one-shot-one]

if you like the .270wsm half as much i i like my .300wsm then you'll have a new hunting rifle for life.

[onlybrowning]

I prefer to carry a short action while hunting, because I prefer the balance of a short action, and there is an increase in reloading speed with a short action over a long. If the poster is new to the sport that is irrelevant, as the short mag does not kick much (if at all) more than a long .270 of the same weight. If the poster does not reload or has an issue paying more money for ammo, then the long action is for that person.

Ps: I am saying this as a proud owner and extensive user of a regular old .270. I am just stating some differences and my preference of a short action rifle for hunting.

[Kaw 750 v-twin]

Sorry for not giving more background. I've been shooting guns all my life. I've been hunting with bows and rifles for a long time and started out with a .243 and then I was handed down a 30-'06 semi-auto which won't hit the broad side of a barn. I never have even been hunting with it because of that, so I have still been using the .243. This year I'm going to be hunting in much larger fields, instead of in woods or smaller fields. I was wanting the little extra confidence with a little bigger caliber, so I figured I'd just step up to the .270 wsm instead of the regular .270 win. Maybe I'll just stick to the .270 win. Are there any other calibers that I should consider and what model rifles would you suggest? Thanks for all the pros and cons and help on this.

[Charles S]

Probably just the opposite. It's common for the comparison to be 10% less velocity for 20% less powder. I doubt the burn temperature would be appreciably less, but the burn time would be less.

Art..I believe this is a first (that I am aware of), but you are way off base with this one.

The 270 WSM case holds about 80 grains of powder (to the case mouth) and is loaded to a the velocity of 3250 fps at a pressure of 65,000 PSI.

OTH the 270 Winchester has a case capacity of 67 grains of powder (to the case mouth) and is loaded to a velocity of approximately 3100 fps at a pressure of about 65,000 PSI.

The Short Mag will burn hotter with more erosion that will it's standard counterpart and the barrel life will be shorter (is it significant to a hunter - probably not).

For the ranges specified on deer sized game I find it hard to justify the cost of the Short Mag.

However it is a great round and a good choice. You will not go wrong with either a short mag or a standard in the 270!

[Fremmer]

Kaw, you could get a .30-06, .308, or a .270 Win, but it sounds like you're interested in a magnum caliber for very long shots. We want you to be happy! If you want to buy a magnum caliber, then I'd take a look at the 7mm Rem Mag. That's a good magnum caliber for deer or elk, and pretty good one for the long shots, too.

Get a Remington!

[tyrajam]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I have no doubt that the 270 wsm will be along for another hundred years. It won't kill a deer any deader than a 270, but it shoots flatter with practically the same recoil (1.9 more ft lbs of recoil energy for the wsm). Where the 270 wsm really shines in my opinion iswith the heavier bullets. It puts a 150gr downrange at 3150 fps vs. 2850fps and 3304 ftlbs of energy vs. 2705 ft lbs of energy. This is more velocity and energy than a 7mm mag but with way less recoil and noise. The high bc of a 150gr .277 bullet also makes this very attractive for long range shooting. The added power also gives it a big edge for black bears or elk. All in all, I think this adds up to a rifle that you just can't go wrong with.

[Fremmer]

I've shot both calibers, and the recoil of each felt about the same to me. But the .270 WSM rifle was a Kimber, and it was light w/synthetic stock. The Kimber rifle was impressive.

Heck, pick either caliber and make yourself happy. Recoil from each is not too bad, and both are excellent long-range calibers for deer.

[Art Eatman]

Charles S, the comparison isn't between the .270 WSM and the regular .270. It's between such as a .300 WSM and a .300 Win Mag. The .300 Win Mag would be ActivShootr's "taller brethren". (No .270 equivalent to the .300 Win Mag)

Googling, Chuck Hawks cites the Nosler guide as saying for the .300 WSM, 60 grains of 4064 gives a 150-grain bullet an MV of 3,242 ft/sec. My Hodgdon book says for the .300 Win Mag, 81 grains of 4064 gives a 150-grain bullet an MV of 3,285 ft/sec. I tend to think that less powder means less heating of the leade...

FWIW, here's loading data for the .270 WSM from the Realguns website:

http://www.realguns.com/loads/270wsm.htm

Art

[Kaw 750 v-twin]

Thanks for all the help. I think I'm going with the 270 wsm. What Rem 700 model would be a good choice with this caliber, or what other model rifle would be a good choice?

[Charles S]

I'm thinking about getting a 270 WSM for hunting deer. Would this caliber be a good choice.

"I heard that the short mags are harder on barrels that their taller brethren."

Probably just the opposite. It's common for the comparison to be 10% less velocity for 20% less powder. I doubt the burn temperature would be appreciably less, but the burn time would be less.

Art,

Sorry since you did not reference a caliber and this thread was in the context of the 270 WSM, I assumed you were comparing the 270 WSM to the taller 270 Winchester.

The information you provided regarding the 300 WSM and the 300 Winchester is correct. I really do believe that the 300 WSM may provide a touch longer barrel life due to a theoretical lower operating temp. However the operating pressure is the same and short fat calibers have been (in the past) awfully hard on the throat. This may not prove to be true. I currently own a number of 300 Magnums including two flavors of short magnums and I don't believe I will shoot out the barrel on any of them. I could be wrong.

I really don't believe that throat erosion will be an issue for the vast majority of hunters.

Googling, Chuck Hawks cites the Nosler guide as saying for the .300 WSM, 60 grains of 4064 gives a 150-grain bullet an MV of 3,242 ft/sec. My Hodgdon book says for the .300 Win Mag, 81 grains of 4064 gives a 150-grain bullet an MV of 3,285 ft/sec. I tend to think that less powder means less heating of the leade...

Just a little FWIW. I have yet to achieve Nosler (or any others) velocities that the manual specifies in their loading manuals with with my 300 WSM. However I can handily exceed factory velocities and easily achieve specified velocities with my 300 Winchester Mag. Maybe I am not using the correct powders in the short mag, but I am going by the book recommendations. I can't help but wonder if the short mag specs are not optimistic.

[Fremmer]

What Rem 700 model would be a good choice with this caliber

The BDL, CDL, or SPS; see which model comes in .270 WSM, and which model fits your budget.

[Art Eatman]

"I really don't believe that throat erosion will be an issue for the vast majority of hunters."

Amen!

I doubt most hunters shoot a box of 20 shells a year. Half-a-dozen for sight-in, maybe, and three or five in the woods on the hunt.

, Art

[FirstFreedom]

I can't help but wonder if the short mag specs are not optimistic.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[biglabsrule]

Well I read through all this and no one mentioned that with a 270wsm your capacity is decreased ,

let the poor kid buy the mag., it'll be a great gun anyways, even if a bit overkill for what he needs and a bit to expensive. There just look at the smile on his face!