.270 Win vs. .270 WSM

[Rifleman1776]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I won't hunt black bear very often, but if I do, would .270 be sufficient? As opposed to the 270 WSM?

[uncyboo]

Yes the 270 should be fine black bear medicine.

[Eghad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Get a 30-06 and be done with it.

[batmann]

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]

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]

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). 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

[700sage]

"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]

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]

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]

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.