# 270 vs 270 WSM



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

If you were buying a new 270, would you get a 270 WSM or not? Anyone care to compare the two?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

WSM. Look at the ballistics. .270 win is a great caliber, the WSM is just that much better.


----------



## huntducksordietrying (Sep 21, 2007)

I just looked at the ballistics and the only thing that would make me not buy the 270 wsm would be if the ammo is a lot more expensive than the 270 win. Here is a link to the page where I get ballistics from. http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ballistics/ That site rocks. -()/-


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The factory ammo is a bit more expensive, but not outrageous.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Whenever 2 calibers are being compared, it's impossible to say which is better without knowing what the intended purpose of the rifle will be.

.270 Win -- Great round with mild recoil for deer out to 300 yards. Most common bullet for big game is 130 grains, larger ones are available but they are long, thin bullets without as much frontal area as other calibers. Ammo is widely available, as this is one of the most popular calibers on the market. Light for elk, and if used on elk should be limited to about 200 yards using the heaviest bullet you can find.

.270 WSM -- extends the range of the .270 for deer sized game beyond 300 yards. If you commonly take shots at 300+, this would be a better caliber for you. If you don't, all you are doing is enjoying additional recoil. This round is one of the flattest shooting you'll find, great for things like antelope too. Again, for a magnum caliber, you have some limited bullet weights. 130 will again be your most common, and heavier bullets don't have enough frontal area for my personal tastes as an elk rifle. Many would disagree with me, it's certainly adequate for elk.

If you're looking for a deer rifle, look no further. These are probably among the best possible choices. If you want an all-around deer and elk rifle, I'd suggest again considering your average shot distance and going with a round that has more of a selection of 180+ grain bullets. Under 200 yards for elk: .30-06, .280 Rem, .308, 7mm-08. For 200+ yards on elk: 7mm Mag, 7mm WSM, .300 WSM, .300 Win Mag.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

+1 what thresher said. You can't go wrong with either one, it just depends on how much you need the extra range the WSM will give you, and whether or not it is worth the extra cost, mainly for ammo.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's the difference. 100 feet per second. The 270 Winchester ammo is available everywhere, WSM is not. Every rifle is available in the 270 Winchester, the WSM is not. If you just want to be different, get the WSM.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

These two rounds are exactly the same calliber thus shoot essentialy the same bullet. The only difference as Threshershark and Weekend Warrier have pointed out very well is that the WSM pushes that bullet a little faster. Velocity extends the range of that bullet but not without a trade off, namely the risk of over expansion and fragmentation. As I have mentioned in other threads velocity particularly in smaller calliber bullets is the enemy of bullet performance. With increased velocity the need for very well constructed bullets increases particularly on heavier game.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Loke said:


> Here's the difference. 100 feet per second. The 270 Winchester ammo is available everywhere, WSM is not. Every rifle is available in the 270 Winchester, the WSM is not. If you just want to be different, get the WSM.


Let me fix that for you, in order to make it more fact than speculation:

Here's the difference. 200-300 feet per second. The 270 Winchester ammo is available everywhere, just like WSM. Many rifles are available in the 270 Winchester, just like the WSM. If you just want a flatter shooting, more powerful version of the .270 Winchester, get the WSM. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

The only advantages to the original are: ammo cost, and recoil. Oh yeah and most rifles will hold 4 in the magazine instead of 3 in WSM. Ammo cost really is a non-factor for most hunters, I don't even know why it's brought up. And the additional recoil of the magnum shouldn't bother most people.

I will say that the advantages of the magnum are really of little use until you get past 400 yards, or if you're trying to hunt animals larger than deer. If you already have a .270, I don't know that I'd upgrade unless you are doing a lot of long-range hunting. But if you're getting a new rifle anyway, there's really no reason not to get the short mag.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Oh, one more thing. I took delivery of a new 270 short mag today


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

I have shot the .270 Win for years and bought a .270 WSM the second they were available. While I still own the original .270 Win. I would pick the WSM version of the .277" bore if I had a choice.

I realize that ammo is more expensive, but what little is actually shot for sighting in and during hunting, compared with, say, the cost of gas or diesel to get there, additional ammo cost is really very insignificant.

I like how .270 WSM factory ammo ACTUALLY chronographs at the advertised velocity -/O\- 
Not so with .270 Win ammo that has been downgraded in SAAMI pressure specs in recent years. To quote the Speer 14 manual: "_Most factory ammunition and handloads won't quite live up to published factory ballistics when fired in a 22" sporter barrel_." - a negative for the .270 Win. that adds up to much more than 100 fps in real life. Of course both have _enough_ velocity, but the extra ft./lbs. and range are a real plus. With all the great bullets available now, you can easily get a factory or component bullet that will perform at the higher magnum velocity so it really is a non-issue unless you make it one.

Recoil is almost a non-issue, with the .270 WSM about like a 180-gr '06 IMO. Not enough more to really hurt.

The short action allows a stiffer receiver (an accuracy plus) and shorter bolt throw, and total rifle length with a 2" longer barrel is similar to the shorter barrel of the .270 Win. in a rifle that weighs the same.

The short/fat non-belted case is more efficient than the longer/skinnier case of the .270 Win. This translates into a potential for better accuracy, and I have noticed this has been true in my own case and others as well. This is one of the reasons the .308 Win is so accurate and the principle works well here the same. Standard (velocity) deviation between shots is _very_ good for such a high-intensity round - another accuracy plus.

Another advantage of the compact nature of the cartridge is that if you are a handloader you can safely assemble either efficient reduced-recoil loads for practice, children, or to mimic the .270 Winchester performance, but with less pressure to obtain the same velocity which is a much better idea than running the .270 Win at maximum pressure/hot loaded to try to get close to the .270 WSM or Weatherby in performance. This gives the WSM a versatility edge over the older round. Just like the .308 vs. 30-06, the short/fat cartridge is somewhat less fussy to find an accuracy load than the longer/skinnier round and is a little more forgiving.

Availability in different brands of rifles are very good currently - yes it is chambered by Browning, Winchester, Savage, Tikka, Remington, Kimber and others. This is basically a non-issue.

The only negative IMO, and it is a small one at that, is that ammo is a bit harder to find in remote areas although popularity of this round is good, which helps.

If you already have a good .270 Winchester, then I would probably just stick with the rifle you are familiar and happy with, but if you don't, I would go with the .270 Winchester Short Magnum.

#########################################################

The last issue I would address is the concept of:


> considering your average shot distance and going with a round that has more of a selection of 180+ grain bullets. Under 200 yards for elk: .30-06, .280 Rem, .308, 7mm-08. For 200+ yards on elk: 7mm Mag, 7mm WSM, .300 WSM, .300 Win Mag.


I would quote John Barsness from Adequate Rifles - Tough Game:

...Sometimes this perception [_alluded to in quote above_] is because certain gun writers may come down many times against lighter cartridges for elk. Some may draw a firm .30-caliber line and state that any .270 or 7mm cartridge isn't their idea of an elk cartridge.

This despite the fact that they have never shot an elk with such a cartridge. Some of them eventually have to use a small caliber because of an odd, unwritten law of gun writing: Only personal experience counts. So [true story of unnamed writer who favors the 8mm Rem. Mag and bigger] they use a .270 Winchester on a trophy hunt in New Mexico, handloaded with 150-grain Nosler Partitions. They kill a good 6-point bull at longer range than he'd ever shot an elk - and the bull went down quicker than any of his previous chest-shot bulls.

Fortunately for us, they are soon penning a new article "Are You Overgunned?" He seems to be mellowing, partly because of that elk - and partly because he recently took his daughter and her friend to Africa and watched them slay elk-sized African game with a 7mm-08 Remington and 150-grain Swift Scirocco bullets.

However, we'll never lack for gun writers who insist only larger cartridges are "truly adequate." Many of them suggest that "resident" elk hunters often get by with such truly inadequate rounds as the .270 WCF and .30-06 because residents can go hunting any time they want to, so pass up "marginal" shots.

This is truly a crock. I was born and raised and live in Montana. We have a five-week rifle season, longer than most other elk states. Montana elk hunters, like most hunters in North America, are working people, so Montana hunters mostly hunt weekends - and usually not every day of every weekend. Consequently their elk season is about as long as the 7-to 10-day elk hunt booked by nonresidents. Most Montana resident also hunt public land where (and when) everybody else hunts, unlike nonresidents who do their hunting a long horseback ride into the wilderness or on some private ranch.

Most Montanan elk hunters (like most hunters) don't read gun magazines, so remain ignorant of the latest Magic Rifles and Super Cartridges. Consequently they mostly use average rifles, often purchased at Wal-Mart: Remingtons, Rugers, Savages, and Winchesters chambered for the .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum and .30-06. A relatively small minority use .300 magnums of any sort, and I can count the .338 Winchester Magnums I've encountered over 40 years of hunting Montana on the fingers of one hand (and that hand carried one of those .338s). These residents take any shot they can get,because their time is just as limited as that of any nonresident. If they shoot well, they do well, the secret to using "inadequate" elk rifles.

Something similar happens when American hunters venture to Africa, whether for plains game or big stuff. They read hunting magazines and decide that African game is nearly bulletproof.

Yet upon arrival, they find that most African hunters hold the .30-06 in high regard for anything smaller than eland, and many even use it on those Alaskan moose-sized antelope. Here I mean "professional" hunters, the guides of Africa. Often African gun writers spout the same big-bore stuff that flows from the laptops of many American gun writers. But the Africans who escort amateurs into the field year after year generally recommend the .30-06 for any plains game, or something very much like it, perhaps the 7mm Remington Magnum. 


The .270 WSM (and .270) certainly fall in the category of the 30-06, 7mm Mag and others when it comes to actual killing power.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

In all reality, any cartridge you pick from 25 to 30 caliber will be equally effective on game at reasonable distances. As long as you put a good bullet in the right spot, your quarry will die. Having a new cartridge introduced every other week is a great idea if you want to sell more rifles. And I'm all for buying more rifles. But in reality, there isn't enough difference in performance between any of the standard, long magnums, short magnums, or any other case design, to make a bit of difference in the hunting fields.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

All good posts, I'll add that one other obvious difference is simply that the WSM is short action. Anyone who has read very many firearms posts on here knows I love them. It's not that the action itself is really all that much shorter, but the lightest rifles are typically available in the short action calibers. This doesn't matter if your rifle is mainly carried by the scabbard on a 4-wheeler, but if you are like me and mainly carry using your actual shoulder over long distances, the lighter the better. I like my rifles to weigh under 6.5 pounds, and many of the mountain rifle models that fit the bill are short.

Not all though, the Weatherby Mark V Ultralightweight in .270 is 5 3/4 pounds and there are probably other light long actions too.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

threshershark said:


> All good posts, I'll add that one other obvious difference is simply that the WSM is short action. Anyone who has read very many firearms posts on here knows I love them. It's not that the action itself is really all that much shorter, but the lightest rifles are typically available in the short action calibers. This doesn't matter if your rifle is mainly carried by the scabbard on a 4-wheeler, but if you are like me and mainly carry using your actual shoulder over long distances, the lighter the better. I like my rifles to weigh under 6.5 pounds, and many of the mountain rifle models that fit the bill are short.
> 
> Not all though, the Weatherby Mark V Ultralightweight in .270 is 5 3/4 pounds and there are probably other light long actions too.


That there Weatherby you're talking about does not feel good in larger calibers. I have a friend who has one in 06 and it kicks worse than my old .338 win. He can only shoot it a few times at the range before he's looking for a shoulder pad.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Tree: You're right, the light rifles do have quite a bit of recoil in the magnum calibers. It all goes back to what you use the gun for. For example, if I had 1 rifle and used it for varmints, deer, elk, and plinking it wouldn't be a 6.5 pound .300 WSM.

However, my annual useage of my deer/elk rifle consists of some pre-season target practice, and then usually 1 shot to put down an animal. I would much prefer to use a sandbag at the rifle range and then carry around a 6-pound rifle over miles and miles of rugged terrain as opposed to having a 9-pounder that is mild on the bench but knots my trapezius into bowline knots in the hills.

The best solution I've seen to the issue is something like Rifles Inc uses. They have a screw-in muzzle brake that eliminates about 40% of felt recoil for range use, which is then replaced with a crowned screw-in barrel tip to go easier on the ears while hunting. Hopefully something like that works its way into more moderately priced rifles before too long. 

My varmint rifles are heavy barreled affairs in lighter calibers that I can easily put hundreds of rounds through. My big game rifle is designed to be carried really far, and shot once. I like 'em light.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I have both, if you already have a 270 you don't need to go out and get the WSM version. I like the WSM better, I have short arms and prefer the short action to a long action. I love my Abolt II that I equiped with a carbon fiber stock.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

I don't have a 270 and am considering a new 270 WSM. One concern is that I want my 12-year old son to be able to shoot it without developing a flinch from excessive recoil. I don't reload (yet), so can I buy factory rounds that are loaded light?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I haven't seen any light loads for the WSM yet, but they will probably appear before long. I've never sat down and compared the 2, but articles I've read suggest that the magnum doesn't kick much harder than the original. For either caliber I would suggest having some loads made up that are low recoil if you're worried. Handloading is the only way to do this. But you probably won't need too many, and there are usually plenty of folks out there willing to load you some for a small fee. Especially if you provide the components. Has your son shot any other rifles? If not, you could borrow a .243 or something and see how he handles that recoil. Then decide if he'd be up for shooting the .270


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

The recoil thing is a legitimate concern for age 12. I started big game hunting at 14, and used a 6mm Remington Model 7 for the first 2 years. It was ideal, and I'd suggest something along the lines of .243, 6mm Rem, .260 Rem, or 7mm-08 for someone of that age unless he is of unusually heavy build. I moved on to a .284 Winchester when I was 16 (which is a .280 Rem on short action) and was very successful with it having built good shooting habits with a lighter round.

I didn't start in on the magnums until I was over 18. Handloading is a good alternative where you can buy a bigger caliber and load down, but guns hold resale value reasonably well and you can always buy a starter rifle and then sell it when he's older.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

As mentioned, Speer likes the short/fat case of the WSM because safe reduced loads work so well in that format.
They recommend 2 reduced loads:
100 grain HP - 25 to 26 grains of AA5744 for 2010 to 2075 fps.
130 grain SP - 25 to 27 grains of AA5744 for 1940 to 2048 fps.
CCI 200 primer & Winchester case

One can also load the lightest starting load in the books - something like H4350 at the starting load of 54.0 grains with a 130 grain bullet @ 3013 fps. to duplicate the .270 Win (Speer data)
or 51.6 grains of RL-19 with a 130 bullet @ 2800 fps. (Hornady data)


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Gumbo said:


> I don't have a 270 and am considering a new 270 WSM. One concern is that I want my 12-year old son to be able to shoot it without developing a flinch from excessive recoil. I don't reload (yet), so can I buy factory rounds that are loaded light?


Well if he shot mine, he'd develop a flinch, it has recoil but its not bad to me. I put a limbsaver recoil pad on my Brownings wood stock and it really tamed it down. My Bell and Carlson carbon fiber stock has a decelarator pad and actually has less felt recoil than the wood stock, I chaulk it up to stock design.

I wouldn't personally recomend a 270 for a starter rifle, I go with smaller caliber like the 7mm-08, 6mm, 243, 308. JMO


----------



## rugerdogdog (Nov 18, 2007)

I think the key would be if you already have one or not. If you have a 270 Win reloading will get you very close to WSM ballistics.
If you don't already have a 270 Win, I would go with the most power you can afford. I would love a 270 Weatherby or even better, a 270 STW, if money were no object.
You can always load down if you are a handloader. Even the STW could be tamed to 270Win recoil.


----------

