# .270 win. or .270 WSM



## natureboy (Feb 16, 2009)

I can't decided which caliber to go with, which one do you think is better? What are the pros and cons?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

.270 ballistics 140 gr bullet has a velocity of about 2,900 ft/s and with about 2,600 ft/lbs of energy
.270 WSM ballistics 3,250 ft/s with same weight of bullet and almost 3,300 ft/lbs.
The WSM certainly has a much better ballistic coefficient by about 12%, which would result in a much flatter trajectory. I think many people would mention the thousands of deer and elk that the .270 has quickly put down over the years. The ammo on the .270 is going to be a fair amount more economical and much easier to find anywhere ammo is sold. 
Here is a pretty good post from Frisco Pete, one of our resident firearm expert nerds; I think he and Loke just read these firearm encyclopedias every waking moment; a wealth of knowledge. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10787&hilit=270+wsm I was asking a similar question also involving this wsm. Good luck!


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Oh, the tough choices!  Flip a coin, I think you'll be happy with either one.

Probably not enough difference in a hunting situation to really matter.. for the animal at least.

The WSM is a shorter action with a bit more recoil. It's becoming quite popular with more avaliable loads lately.

I personaly would pick the WSM.

sawsman


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

I don't really see too many cons with the old .270 Winchester when you compare it to the .270 WSM. Obviously, the WSM is faster and has more energy, but at what cost? Ammo is more expensive, there is not as much of a selection as the regular .270, and anywhere that ammo is sold you can be assured to find the trusty .270 Winchester. Also, there is more of a selection of rifles chambered in .270 Winchester than WSM, although there is quite enough to choose from that I'm sure you'd find something you like in WSM. The recoil is harder on the short magnum and you do have less shots in the magazine. The WSM does have a shorter action, so it is supposed to be faster and gives you a more compact rifle, but I personally don't have a problem lugging around that extra 1/2 inch or shooting a long action fast enough. If you load your ammo cost is less of an issue, but the brass is usually still more expensive for the short magnums and hard to find sometimes. 

With the Hornady Light Magnum 140 grain loads you can get 3100 fps and 2987 ft-lbs out of the regular .270 Winchester.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I love my WSM, wouldn't trade it for 20 regular 270's. I like short action rifles since I have short arms.

WSM do cost a little more, but I'll pay more for the performance I get out of it. I'm gearing up to reload them now because I want to play with the loads a little. Availability of WSM vs. standard 270 is no argument nowadays due to the 270 WSM popularity; you can get them almost anywhere now.

Still can’t make your mind up? Flip that coin. :lol:


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

You knew I'd have to jump on this one. With handloads and a 24" barrel, you can get 3000 fps in the safely in the 270 Winchester with a 140 grain bullet. In the WSM, Hornady lists one load that hits 3200. I have had conversations with a friend that gets insider information from Barnes Bullets (his cousin owns the place) concerning the short magnums. Their ballistician tells him that the only way the factories can reach their velocity claims with them is to load them on the hot side with proprietary powders, and extremely compressed loads. I have read that the propellant they use comes in a liquid or gel form, and solidifies into something resembling solid rocket fuel. Keeping pressures at a sane level will result in a longer life for your rifle. If you only shoot a box or two per year, the high pressure stuff probably won't hurt any thing. If you shoot thousands of rounds (like I used to), the lower pressure rounds will keep metal fatigue at bay for a longer period of time. The lower cost of power and brass is a huge factor in my mind, as is the availability of ammo. Given the state of political affairs these days, I'd stick with what is more available.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

I currently own both the classic .270 Winchester and the new .270 WSM. Like everything in the gun world, there are trade-offs which each cartridge. The garden-variety .270 Win is a terrific round and has worked well since 1925 and even better with the advent of the newer premium bullets in both factory loads and handloads. Recoil is reasonable for just about anyone and rifle choices and factory ammo availability is impossible to beat although factory ammo doesn't seem to live up to the advertised speed that built the .270s rep early on. Factory ammo is available in both Managed-Recoil and Light-Magnum types as well as the plethora of the usual suspects. I don't have anything bad to say about this classic caliber but...

...If I had to go with just one of those .277" calibers, I would pick the WSM version. Unlike the .270 Win, factory ammo in .270 WSM has actually chronographed at listed factory velocity for me (Win 140-gr Supreme @ 3146 fps - factory spec is 3125 fps / Win 150-gr Super-X PP @ 3137 fps/ factory spec is 3150 fps) This means you are generally getting a 200+ fps advantage with the WSM. Whether this makes much difference in on-target effect is debatable, but considering that the WSM virtually mimics the extremely popular 7mm Rem Mag ballistics means that there are a lot of people who would like a .270 that shoots as flat and hits as hard as the 7-mag, or can shoot the heavier 140-150 bullets faster than a standard .270 Win shoots 130s. The WSM delivers this performance easily and thus is a good choice for those torn between a regular .270 and yet have a hankerin' for just a bit more power and flatter trajectory _ala_ 7mm Mag for those long cross-canyon shots.

One nice thing about the WSM series that the 270 WSM shares, it that the short/fat compact case means that a handloader can assemble efficient reduced power handloads that can be starter loads for wives and kids or ones that can duplicate the .270 Win velocity at reduced pressures _i.e._ a mid-range load in the WSM will duplicate hot, full-pressure .270 Win max loads. Or you can add more powder and turn it back into a magnum. You can load the WSM down to the standard, but you can't load the Win. version up to a WSM and have the rifle stay together.

Studying the Nosler, Speer, & Hornady manuals indicates that you can load the 270 WSM with 130-grain bullets anywhere in the 3200 fps (Hornady) to the 3350+ range (Nosler).
140-grainers go 3100-3200 fps, and heavy 150s 3000-3150 fps. No special powder or reloading techniques, just proper slow-burning over-the-shelf powders.

The specially-loaded proprietary/compressed/liquid/gel powders are what Hornady uses to make the standard .270 Win "Light Magnum" high velocity loads with a 130-gr @ 3215 and a 140-gr @ 3100 fps that you can't duplicate with off-the-shelf powders except with a bigger WSM.

In the few cases I have observed, it seems like generally the faster WSM can easily deliver as good as, if not better (_in my own case better_) accuracy than the standard version. Possibly this is due to the short/fat case design that optimizes the combustion chamber efficiency - much like the .308/7mm-08 family that are known for accuracy. Of course this can be rifle-specific, but the trend looks very good.

Part of the above can be due to the stiffer short action (.308-length). In addition, you get a slightly shorter overall length because of this. The rifle _can_ weigh less as well. This was part of the rationale behind the WSM (_and RSAUM_) series - Magnum power in a light, quick-handling rifle.

Of course the downsides are a little more recoil, much more expensive factory ammunition (_how many boxes do you go through each year? What does gas/diesel cost you in comparison to get to your hunting spot?_) And also it is not available everywhere, should you forget to bring your ammunition on a hunt or live in a place where it is hard to get WSM ammo or can't order it on the 'net for some reason.

So, to sum up, the original .270 Winchester is a great round and you really can't go wrong with one. If you feel that I have "damned by faint praise" the .270, you are mistaken. It is one of the greatest American cartridge developments of the 20th Century and it wouldn't be #2 behind the '06 if it didn't bring a lot to the table. 
However, if you feel like you would like the edge in trajectory and performance that the magnums bring; if you want the ultimate in flexibility (especially for a handloader); if you seek magnum performance in a light, quick-handling, short-action rifle; if you are tired of having the same caliber as everyone else in the hunting camp; then for that once or twice a year hunt that you think about months ahead - you may want to consider the latest "digital 270", the .270 Winchester Short Magnum.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

You can't say I didn't warn you about Loke and Frisco Pete! FWIW I saw that premium winchester ammo sells for the same price at wally between the 7mag and the 270 wsm, so not any more expensive than another common round.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

The wsm is better in every way except for price.

lighter gun
shorter action travel
faster bullet (more forgiving)

I shoot a 270. I think it is a great caliber, but given the choice, I would take the WSM


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Here is my opinion on ALL of the calibers introduced in the last 10 years. They are simply marketing tools to sell new guns. Not that that is a bad thing. But none of them will do anything that the older calibers are incapable of doing. Yes, the hot new varmint calibers are interesting. I would love to have a 204, and I won't part with my 17HMR. But I just can't get excited about the short mags. The only one that I would consider is the 300 short ultra mag in an AR10 (or the 7mm version if it were available). And this is only because they are short enough to fit in to the AR10's action. All of them are simply reinventions of calibers that have been around for over 60 years. The 270 WSM is simply a short, fat 270 Weatherby. Sorry if I don't get all giddy. They are nothing new.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Loke said:


> Here is my opinion on ALL of the calibers introduced in the last 10 years. They are simply marketing tools to sell new guns. Not that that is a bad thing. But none of them will do anything that the older calibers are incapable of doing. Yes, the hot new varmint calibers are interesting. I would love to have a 204, and I won't part with my 17HMR. But I just can't get excited about the short mags. The only one that I would consider is the 300 short ultra mag in an AR10 (or the 7mm version if it were available). And this is only because they are short enough to fit in to the AR10's action. All of them are simply reinventions of calibers that have been around for over 60 years. The 270 WSM is simply a short, fat 270 Weatherby. Sorry if I don't get all giddy. They are nothing new.


Now that you mention it, I know that you would marry a .270 if you could. Frisco said that his preferred favorite, if I read correctly is the 300 short, what is yours Loke if you could have any large bore of any with no respect to price or anything other than ballistics and what gets you excited?


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Of the new cartridge introductions of the last 10 years, the 204 Ruger has some unique characteristics that make it worthwhile, and IMO the Short Mags have worthwhile characteristics as well ESPECIALLY for the handloader like me and it isn't just about velocity. I remember that many experimenters, like Rick Jamison and Ross Seyfried were messing with the short/fat non-belted efficient concept back in the late '80s and 90's. Seyfried necked the brand new 300 WSM down to .270 at once because it was such a good move ballistically. Jamison also pioneered the .17 HMR (_wasn't the .22 Mag good enough? All it needed was cheaper ammo_)

The belt can be a problem for handloaders because it encourages factories to have sloppy chamber tolerances. In addition it does nothing but add cost to the manufacturing the case. Belted cases are more likely to have case separation and shorter case life. The short/fat cases also bring very good internal ballistics to the table and are much more forgiving of reduced and lighter bullet loads than the standard long-action belted mag. As mentioned, in this they imitate the .308 Win. And of course I think a short action is better than a longer one. It is stiffer for sure anyway.

So if I were the manufacturer "king for a day" I would drop the belted rounds like the 7mm Rem Mag and .300 Win Mag and replace them with the friendlier WSM versions!
I wouldn't keep the WSSM versions because they are an odd duck, The RSAUMs are smaller and too late to the market, and I have some doubts about the worth of the giant-cased but inefficient Ultras. The manufacturers are trying to fill all the niches, and there are certainly going to be some failures and real duds. I think it would be boring if all we had was the stuff that was out there before 1969.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Frisco Pete, I agree that things would be boring without all the new cartridges to argue about. And belts on cases are for the most part, useless. After fireforming, I necksize the cases in my 300 Winchester so that it headspaces on the shoulder. What I find amusing are those who claim that the latest, newest, shortest, fattest whatever is better simply because it is newer, shorter, and/or fatter. The WSSMs are a fine example. They had impressive ballistics, but didn't overshadow their standard length counterparts. Maybe the feeding issues, and ammo availability had something to do with this.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I dont know about the rest of you guys, but Frisco Pete seems like a god when it comes to knowledge about this stuff! I think I'll ask him next time I buy a new caliber.

Frisco-
do you know much about the 6.5 Creedmore?


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Scratch the Creedmoor question. Upon further review, not as interesting of a cartridge as I initially thought. Expected barrel life is roughly 4000 rounds, whereas the .308 is anywhere from 6000 to 8000. I'll stick to my .308!


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics/

Go over to the Hornady site and check out the trajectories and residual energy of these two.

270 Win 2900 FPS with a 130 grain, B.C. 0.460

270 WSM 3000 FPS with a 140 grain, B.C. 0.495

You might shoot either one a bit faster, but these are not max loads and I prefer to never load max loads. (Hornady 7th Edition.)

I think you just sold me the *270 WSM*. BTW I really like the 270 Win.


----------

