Shooters Forum banner

270 or 270 WSM

60K views 222 replies 60 participants last post by  sportsman800 
#1 ·
I will be buying a Tikka T3 lite in the next couple of weeks in the .270 caliber and was wondering if I should go with a .270 or a 270 WSM. I know the ammo is more expensive with the WSM but was wondering if there are any significant differences in performance with the WSM vs the regular .270. I also believe the WSM is more expensive as well. Was just wondering if the 270 WSM preforms better than the regular .270? Thanks for the help.
 
#2 ·
Well the differences are marginal in favor of the WSM. If you're a reloader I'd buy the cheaper gun. If not, go with the standard as factory ammo is considerably more available, and varied.

Assuming they cost the same, I'd probably go with the standard. No real reason, just cause, as I reload anyway. But if the WSM were cheaper I'd get that as I reload so ammo cost is sort of not an issue.

Aside from the cost of the rifle (and "free" add-ons) , go with whatever floats your boat.
 
#3 ·
If it were me, I'd simply pick the .270 Winchester as it was originally designed by God and annointed by His son, Jack O'Connor. The .270 Win. wasn't broke, Winchester was. The Short Magnums were meant to be bought as something new always stirs the boys up and gets the juices flowing. I've heard all the arguments for and against. I'm a man, full and growd, and I can carry the extra 6oz of rifle. I can get by very nicely without the real or imagined velocity increase, thank you. I don't really care about the more "efficient" WSM case, I really don't. I much prefer the widespread availability of the original round though. And I'm old. I like old things.
 
#5 ·
The differences between the two are very small ballistically.

The differences in ammo cost and availability, lots.

One thing for sure, the .270 Winchester will be here, long after shooters who even remember the Short Magnum craze, which will almost certainly fade to oblivion, are in their graves.
 
#8 ·
Performance you start with the 270 move up to the 270WSM then up to the 270Wby. The cheapest cost of ammo is the same starting with the 270 next 270WSM next 270Wby and reloading cost figure the same way.

I think the 270WSM is alot better rd than the 270.
 
#9 ·
i'd go with the std 270. there are a few guys around here that are using the 270wsm and overall they seem to like the cartridge but it is hard on venison, i think if you were gonna shoot high end bullets the short mag would be fine but i can't see where it would gain ya much for the added costs...
 
#10 ·
I think they are both good although i personally would go with the WSM. The ammo for the most part is cheaper for the 270 Win but sometimes you can get some for the WSM on sale for no more than the 270 win. There's alway's the option of going with something like Hornady Superformane which has a MV of 3200fps with a 130gr bullet versus the standard load of 3060fps in the 270 Win. You then only lose somewhere between 75-100 fps, the standard load with 130gr bullet for the WSM is between 3275-3300fps. Great round no matter which way you go.
 
#11 ·
I had a T3 Lite Stainless in 270wsm. It was an excellent gun. Very accurate and an unbelievable trigger. However, here in the WI woods I think the 270wsm was too much. I shot the 140gr accubond and it left very large holes. If you live/hunt in an area where long shots beyond 300 yards are the norm then I'd go with the wsm. The wsm really shines at long distances. Less than that and you're good with the standard 270. Plus they're crazy with ammo prices. Around here the difference was as about $10 a box.
 
#12 ·
My ruger M77 .270 is 36 years old and never let me down from whiteail, mule deer and (2) bull elk.
I agree with the others that the difference in performance is minor compared to the cost to own and operate.

You will love the 270 in the Tikaa - good luck!

Grab you a Zeiss Conquest 3x9 for $399 and never look back!
 
#13 ·
I would also second the standard 270. My thoughts on the "improved" 243, 270, etc... is that the slight increase in speed isn't worth the extra cost. You can walk into any gun shop, hardware store, or discount store in the country and get a box of 270 should you forget your ammo or run out. You can't do that with the WSM
 
#49 ·
Good for you! I have been shooting my Savage Mdl 110L (left hand bolt) since 1960. I hand loaded it for years, but not so much now. I have shot everything from crows and woodchucks to deer, black bear, antelope, Mtn. goat and elk.

It is just a great cartridge and easy to reload. And as been said, ammunition in a variety of loads is available everywhere. Put a nice 3x9 on it and have some great hunts.

TB
 
#18 ·
You made a good choice, CBrown2008.

As Magnumitis pointed out, the WSM version is roughly 10% more powerful, but that only means you expend 10% less energy on the dirt or tree the bullet plows into after going through its original target, with your choice of the standard 270 Win. Looking at it another way, you would need to get 10% closer to your target, so if you started at 300 yards, you'd need to get to (you guessed it!) 270 yards! :)

Some things work perfectly, as is...the 270 Winchester is one such thing.
 
#19 ·
The real differences are seen between the .270 win and the .270 Wby.

On paper it's 12% rather than the 9% between the Win and WSM. Doesn't sound like much, maybe.

But with a 130 gr. bullet and a 200 yard zero, the Wby. drops 15" at 400 yards as oppsed to the Win's 20". At 500 yards the difference is 10" of drop............ 30" for the Wby. and 40" for the Win. A pretty significant 12%.
 
#20 ·
Because of the rifle model you've chosen, I'd say to choose the oldie, .270 Win. The Tikka does not have a SA for the SA .270WSM and also then adds additional barrel length, over the .270 Win. So, you're shooting a SA chambering in a LA and have a 2" longer barrel. Part of what makes the SMs desirable is the shorter actions over the older mags and their efficiecy with shorter barrels. If you were to say the Tikka in .270 Win VS a Model Seven in .270 WSM (I own one of these) I'd go with the Seven, with it's compact action and 22" barrel.
 
#21 ·
The best answer to your question is get a 30.06. :D
 
#22 ·
I'm a diehard standard Win guy myself. The WSM will always be a little better performance wise as it's got a larger case. BUT that difference is not as much as we're led to believe if you're using same length barrels. A 24" barrel in a Win can put you maybe 100-150 fps behind the WSM with the 130 grn. The funny thing is I get about 75-100 fps less in my 22" Win vs 24". I personally think the biggest advantage with the WSM is with the 150 grn and where you'd probably see the biggest gain.
 
#23 · (Edited by Moderator)
Not to stray from the subject, but read this.

Hunting Rifle Accuracy:
Enough is Enough!

By Chuck Hawks



Fritz, feel free to include a link. However, you may be infringing on copyrighted material by pasting an entire article. I would suggest getting permission from the author if you want to include the entire article here. Please see our policy on copyrighted material if you have questions - MikeG, site admin

Sorry to have to delete but it's a litigious age......
 
#25 ·
Go for the GGGGGG---old.

The good ole boys recommending the standard 270 winchester are giving you a
real straight answer. There is very very little difference in performance of the
"other 270's" and the ammo is sometimes impossible to buy for them if you are
in the middle of the woods with one general store. The old 270 will be there!!
This short magnum thing was created to sell something "new and improved" just like
the add on my wife's dish washing detergent.
 
#26 ·
I purchased a Tikka Hunter 270 WSM 3 years ago. Has a great trigger and adjustable for me if I chose and I did. Have harvested 10 deer the last 2 seasons with it and never had to track it over 50 yards. The meat damage was very little as it all depends on where you throw the shell at in the deer. Placement is everything. Heart & lung shots on all but 2 which were head shots. This past season 190 lb 8pt at 75 yards thru the left side lungs and right out the other side. This is the one in my avatar. I load all my shells and used Nosler 130 gr. partition bullets. He went 30 yards and busted the ground. To me it is like shooting a gallon jug of water with the 270SM. The impact ruptures the core. And by the way I had only the ribs that were actually bloodshot. The rest of the meat AOK. I simply love this SM. Your choice is still OK going with the reg 270. It has been an all around cartridge for years. With me I don't care if the store has my ammo or not. I like that extra little zing for my kills. I was really concerned before I bought this Tikka as you are on which one, but I am very satisfied with my choice. Some just do not like a change no matter what it is, "no offense intended to anyone" but I don't mind treading into new waters with caution. Look at all the other calibers that came out at one time or another they had to go thru the same kinds of test. Who knows?
 
#28 · (Edited)
Very well stated. I own about 7 of the original, classic .270s. I found a rifle that is shorter, more powerful and handier in .270WSM. How can that be wrong?? I've listened to a lot of argument from shooters who own the oldie (maybe??) and wonder why they are so adamant, when they've never even shot the newbie....:confused:

OHH... they are what I like to call "internet experts"! People who have read good things and then, with ZERO experience like to make a posting about stuff. In my mind, useless BS!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrisw2
#29 ·
TnHunter, two summers ago I and several members of my gunclub did in fact do some testing and chrony work with a .270 Winchester and the new .270-WSM caliber. We also tested the .300 Win mag and the .300-WSM as well. The only draw back was that we could not test out to 300 yards. Testing was done at 100 yards from the bench.

Now the real advantage the .270-WSM had on the .270 Winhester, was when we used the 130 grain bullet. The velocity difference between the two calibers was 135fps, being in favor of the WSM caliber. However, it was much closer when we used the 150 grain bullet. Only 85fps faster with the WSM caliber.

The .300 Win mag was something like 145 fps faster and I never saw any difference in the recoil of either rifle. We were using 180 grain bullets.

The big thing for hunters would be the cost of ammo for the WSM caliber, almost twice as much per box and same goes for brass if you plan on reloading that caliber .270-WSM.
 
#30 ·
I am the sort of guy that has to make up my mind for myself. The decision on what to buy is different for someone that does not reload. I have to agree with the rest there. Buy a caliber that you can readily find the shells for. For me I take all the advice, expert and otherwise and process it. I don't care if others don't like this or that. Its OK. Just let it go. I listened and read articles about the SM's for a long time. Found a lot of negative feedback with it.
I just simply love reloading and plinking around. If I don't have some meat to shoot at then thru the spring and summer months I would go wild if I couldn't shoot something. This new caliber (to me at least) gives me some purpose and challenge to see what I can do with it. So far I like it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top