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.
 
#32 ·
As the former owner of 3 .270 Win's and a current .270 WSM owner, I have to say that either one is a great cartridge, but I prefer the .270 WSM. A few hundred fps faster, and better accuracy to boot. Ammo can be expensive, although the only real differences, if you reload, are a little more initial outlay on cases and a bit more powder. I did find as well that the cases don't fit the Lee primer tools (I haven't tried them yet in my new RCBS primer tool), but that wasn't a big deal to me.

What the WSM really buys you over the standard .270 is a little flatter trajectory and probably tighter grouping, both good things in my book. You're more likely to hit what you're aiming for if you don't have to compensate as much for drop and if you have less scatter.

I do get a kick out of folks who tell you the velocity differences are slight, but then say the WSM blows giant holes in everything! It's all in the bullet and placement.
 
#36 · (Edited)
I have to say that either one is a great cartridge, but I prefer the .270 WSM. A few hundred fps faster, and better accuracy to boot. Ammo can be expensive, although the only real differences, if you reload, are a little more initial outlay on cases and a bit more powder. I did find as well that the cases don't fit the Lee primer tools...

...I do get a kick out of folks who tell you the velocity differences are slight, but then say the WSM blows giant holes in everything! It's all in the bullet and placement.
Generally factory ammo puts about 200 fps +/- advantage to the WSM with 130's. One thing to note is the velocity standard in standard cartridges is with 24" barrels, 26" in magnums. Put both in equal length barrels and it's more realistically about a 100-150 difference with the 130 grn.

Both Federal and Hornady offer 270 Win ammo with a MV of 3200 fps. I can get that as well in my 24" M70. Federal (and most other factory) ammo with the 130 in 270 WSM gives less than 100 fps gain. I'd think a loader could get 3300+, but still that's the 100-150 fps difference. The WSM will always have the speed advantage due to larger case capacity, but there really isn't any real world advantage to it over the Win, nothing one will do the other can't. If I liked the rifle and it was in a WSM, I'd take it. I just prefer the Win. As far as accuracy...I can post up some groups with both my M700 and M70 that are pretty darn good....
 
#33 ·
I agree with the flatter trajectory, especially with the 130 grain bullet but the grouping of shots is has much to gray an area to take sides. Now for instance I have a .270 Winchester in my vault, that a little Texas gunsmith put together some 40 years ago. It will indeed put 5 shots into .500-MOA from the bench at 100 yards. The gunsmith by the way was Mr. Kleingunther
 
#35 ·
My M70 in 270 Winchester, with a sporter weight barrel, used to put 5 shots into clusters measuring less than .600", but for a hunting rifle, that doesn't really matter all that much. If the groups were three times that size they'd still be plenty for hunting deer out to 300 yards, or so. More importantly, the OP already made his choice and couldn't go far wrong with either of these cartridges, so the matter is settled.
 
#38 ·
My first rifle was in 270. I shoot over 200 yds quite frequently. Since obtaining a 270 wsm several years ago, my 270 win stays in the back of the gun vault. It may just be that my 270 wsm is more accurate...but I'm much more confident with it and have been much more successful. Ammo price and availability doesn't matter much too me as I reload. And honestly I can't say I've ever been to any place in Montana that sells ammo that doesn't have 270 wsm. I disagree that this is a passing fancy. 300 wsm and 270 wsm are the hottest selling rifles around here...for several years now...and doesn't seem to be slowing down. But either 270 or 270 wsm is a good choice.
 
#39 · (Edited)
I would say go with the old 270winchester Not that the new 270 wsm is bad but i don't think its much or any better for the cost. I don't really like the short fat cratrades in general i don't think they feed as well, and you may not be able to get as many 270wsm in a clip as regular 270 but not sure i would have to look.

The 270 is already fast shooting cartridge i don't see the need to go any faster. I shot a deer under at about 60 yards with a nosler partition and seemed like whole front have of the deer was bloodshot from the shock i don't think i would want a faster caliber unless only using heavy bullets or taken longer shots.

I have had 2 regular 270 and shot my friends 270 wsm ( and worked up various loads for him) and they have all shot well i think both are accurate cartridges but my vote would be 270.

I would look at the 270weatherby before 270wsm because its even faster and more expensive and if that's what ya like then no point in stopping ant 270wsm might as well get a 270weatherby. : )

I would like a 270weatherby for long range antelope hunting would be awesome round for that.
 
#40 ·
I am not experiencing and feeding problems with 270WSM in my Winchester 1885. :cool:

The 28" barrel gives me a ballistic edge, but I dunno how much as I do not own a chronograph at this point.

It is reasonably pleasant to shoot, and I feel it is just the thing for the long shots at tough animals that are common in West Texas.

One problem I ran across was that prefer the Lee neck-sizing dies that require no lubricant, but cannot find those for the 270WSM and wound up buying a Hornady neck-sizing die for this cartridge instead.

Accuracy with Federal 130 grain factory loads was disappointing at first, then a noticed that the muzzle crown on this used gun had been "Bubba'd"... Ten minutes later I had cleaned up the crown and next time out, accuracy was most gratifying.

I have never owned a 270 Winchester so I cannot provide a comparison... I will say though that for the longer shots that one tends to get in my area, I feel confident with the 270WSM. Point-blank range with 130 grain bullets is around 300 yards. ( 3" or less or rise or drop within 300 yards if zero'ed at 200 yards. ) - which suits me fine.

As I mentioned before, I am getting somewhat better ballistics than the figures for a 24" barrel mentioned above, but I do not know how much better and won't until I get around to buying a chronograph.

A fellow who lives here had a Winchester model 70 Super in .270 Winchester... He sold the rifle and bought another model 70 Super in 270WSM. He says that it shoots flatter and at the same time, the short action is much easier and quicker to cycle than his old long-action model 70.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnhunter
#42 ·
I'd choose the .270 Win. which I have. When I want (need?) more I go for a larger diameter projectile.
 
#44 ·
Since I hand load, there is no doubt in my mind that I can come ****ed close to .270 WSM velocities out of a 22" barreled .270. You can look here for proof: Real Guns - Handload Data - .270 Winchester However, velocity ain't as important as putting bullets where they need to go.

I have nothing against the .270 WSM or the .270 Wby. I can flatly guarantee you that neither the .270 WSM nor the .270 Wby will kill anything any deader than the .270 Win. Destroy any animal's ability to pump oxygenated blood to its brain, and it will die. That is biological fact. What destroys the important parts is immaterial. That they are destroyed is.

I like fast-handling rifles with barrels no longer than 24". I prefer 22" barrels. The .270 Win has been killing everything on North America for nigh on a century. It will do so another century.

It the end, it will be your subjective decision. What we think doesn't matter. What you think does. However, keep in mind that either one won't kill anything any deader than the other two,
 
#45 ·
The biggest difference I have found with the 270 wsm vs. the 270 win. is the accuracy. You can't find a round that my browning A-bolt 270 wsm doesn't like. 85 gr to 160 gr the gun shoots all of them at under an inch at 100 yds and my 130 gr noslers shoot 1/2" groups at the range. If you choose the 270 wsm you will be gaining 200 fps velocity, energy, accuracy and a lighter short action gun with magnum capabilities. You will be spending more money on ammo no doubt about that, but better usually does cost more.
 
#46 ·
Like my WSM

Just picked up a Rem Mod 7 whitetail couple weeks ago, only 270 cal I've ever owned. So far ran some Rem 130 gr factory through it with outstanding accuracy. Like the shorter package and looking forward to hunting with it.
Stopped by a small sports shop the other day and the fellow that owned it said he had some ammo for it that had not moved, Sold me 3 boxes of Win 150 gr PP for $20.00 per box:eek: Couldn't pass it up.
So now all I need is a set of dies and I'm ready to roll my own.
 
#47 ·
The only way to get any real benefit from the .270 WSM is to have a rifle with a 26" barrel. Anything shorter and the difference between the two carriages is not worth the trouble. I have shot my buddy's .270 WSM with a 24" barrel and the only thing I notice is the extra muzzle blast. He picked up maybe 100 fps more velocity than my standard .270 when we chronographed it. Big wup.
 
#48 ·
I am well-aware that hunters use subjective criteria when buying rifles and selecting cartridges. Believe me, I do the same thing. Truth be told, nothing was necessary after the '06. But that wouldn't have been fun.

Chris, I'm sure your rifle is deadly accurate. But it is your rifle or cartridge that makes it so? I have a 40+ year-old Model 700 in .270 Win. It's pretty darn accurate. And it kills stuff pretty darn dead.

I with Brandit. I like rifles with barrels no longer than 24". I like them light & fast-handling. Most of all, I like them accurate. My 7MM Rem Mag will shoot tiny groups all day long. Just over a month ago, I put a 160 Partition fired from my 7MM Rem Mag through a 900lb+ bull elk's heart. He was dead standing up. The bullet made a through-and-through wound with a substantial exit wound. Here's the kicker: there is no doubt in my mind that a 150 grain.270 Win Partition out of a 22" barrel would have killed it just as dead.

While I like cartridge banter more than Socrates would've, one could make a very cogent case of the .280 Rem as all that's necessary for all North American big game. I can see the same cogent argument for the .308 Win.

Biology wins every single time. Nothing that lives can remain in that condition sans its heart and lungs. Since everything living dies with cessation of brain activity, all we gotta do is reduce an animal's blood pressure to zero. What does that is immaterial. That it does hit zero does.

Out to say 150 yards, a .30-30 Will will kill any elk just as dead as were it hit with a .300 Wby Mag. It's all about what a bullet destroys.
 
#50 ·
Tigerbeetle,

Excellent advice for Cbrown2008.

It's hard to go wrong with any reasonable cartridge. And there is everything right with the .270 Win. .277 seems to be an inherently accurate caliber. And from experience, the .270 Win will kill big game.

I could live with a .270 Wby Mag or a .270 WSM. But I'd be a whole lot more happy with a 22" barrel .270 Win, which is why I own two.

One thing I have noticed that began over a decade ago is appearance of mega-magnums with falsely inputed claims that 100 grains of powder in a half-pound cartridge will kill game deader than will a .308 Win/'06. I'm good with any cartridge any hunter wants to use. But I will politely bow out of conversations in which a hunter tries to tell me that a .300 RUM will kill big game deader than a .308 Win. I'd much rather have a 7lb .308 Win that doesn't loosen teeth while bench shooting than any mega-magnum. Bench shooting builds confidence. Confidence kills big game. I do know that a .308 Win that destroys an elk's heart will kill it a lot quicker than a mega-magnum miss or a mega-magnum to its guts.

After last month's elk hunt during which I've very successfully used my 7MM Rem Mag, I'm all but certain that I'm going right back to a .270 Win for ALL North American big game. A .270 Win would have killed my better than 900 pound bull just as dead. It's shorter & lighter.

After 40+ years of owing at least one .270 Win, I honestly cannot find a single flaw in that cartridge. I do think that the .280 Rem is probably the single best cartridge for all North American big game because it will shoot the very deadly 175 grain Partition at about 2800 FPS out of a fast-handling and lightweight 22" barreled rifle, but a 150 .270 Win Partition at 3000 FPS (chrono'd out of my 22" barreled Model 700 .270 Win) ain't a half-bad second place.
 
#53 ·
I love the Rem 7mm Mag. I have one, use it and cherish it. Mine is a BDL with a 26" barrel. I have to say that long barrel is a pain when you have to duck under junipers, but it has been proven time and time again that the only way to get the full potential performance from a 7mm Rem Mag is to pair the cartridge with a barrel no less than 24", and even with a 24" barrel you are close to lacking enough pipe for a full powder burn. Shoot a 7mm Rem Mag out of a 22" barrel and all you have is a loud .280 Rem with outrageous recoil. You have defeated the purpose. Same goes with the .270 WSM.
 
#51 ·
I shot my first bull elk six years ago with my Weatherby Vanguard .270. I used Winchester 150 grain XPs. Double lunged him from about thirty yards. He ran about 100 and piled up. When I dressed him it looked like a bomb had gone off inside his chest cavity. The heart and lungs were liquified. My respect for the .270 went through the roof that day.
 
#52 ·
I like the 270 Win. Back when I was looking for a new one, I was upset because all I could find was the WSM. I finally found a SAKO A7 in 270 Win and am happy.
I have never understood the worry over amount of drop. If I were going to shoot at 500 yards, I would set up a target and shoot. I believe I could learn the hold over for a 40 in drop as easily as a 30 in drop.
 
#54 ·
Hi Bandit.45,

I have a 24" barrel on my 7MM Rem Mag. Using hand loads, I've choron'd 160 Partitions at better than 3100 FPS and 175 grain Partitions at better than 3000 FPS. Granted, Ive taken these loads from circa mid-70's data, but they shoot flawlessly in my rifle with absolutely no signs of excessive pressure. I've choron'd the Nosler book load of 63 grains of IMR-4350 with 150 grain Ballistic Tips at better than 3200 FPS. These velocities are plenty good for me.

While chasing Southeastern Utah bull elk last month in dense brush, I had wished that I had had my 22" barreled .270 Win. In fact, I'm nearly 100% certain that I will use my Sako AV in .270 Win for all big game hunting from here on out. I love light, fast-handling rifles, especially in dark timber.
 
#55 ·
Did you have to experiment with different powders to get there with your 7mm? I use IMR 7828 and I've been averaging 3150 with 160 grain TSXs over a medium powder load. I could probably pack more powder in but why go faster? That velocity is plenty for me.

I guess all I'm saying is a 26" barrel will save you a lot of work in getting the best performance out of any magnum, especially if you handload.
 
#56 ·
I own a Weatherby Vanguard in standard 270 cal. One of my hunting buddies owns a 270 WSM. Each year we typically hunt in Colorado where shots can range from a few yards to way out yonder aways. My personal best shot on a mulie was 410 yds using my 270 and 130 gr CT silvertip bullet and 52 gr of H4350 powder. I have a nice 3x9 Shepherds Scope mounted on it. The scope cost me more than the rifle.
My buddy has shot nice bucks out to 400 yards as well and swears by his Tikka 270 WSM. He does not reload. He shows me big exit holes on his deer.
Both calibers will work well for deer and elk. I have shot elk with 270 but have bought a Weatherby 300 WSM for my elk hunting. Elk are alot tougher animal to bring down so a 30 cal and 180 bullet seems to do quite nicely.
I shot a mule deer buck once with the 300 wsm. This was at 200 yds and he dropped lock a rock.
 
#57 ·
Old things are good things...mostly

I did a bit this sort of agonising myself, but only for about 5 minutes. To me the answer was simple; get the 270W. I just went down to my LGS and picked up my Montana Rifle Co American Standard Rifle in 270W and we are going to the range tomorrow.
 
#58 ·
Most of these decisions come down to what kind of personality you have, some people are nostalgic, feel safe with tried and true things. Others always go for new products, new ideas, want the absolute best even if the margin over the others is insignificant. It's probably easier to see in guys choice of trucks, I know guys that will buy a new truck because it has 10hp more than the one they currently have.
This isn't always true but more often than not, I'm not into buying new trucks every couple of years but certainly love technology in firearms. I don't own a 270wsm but have been shooting and working up loads for a Sako 85 this past summer, everything about that gun is absolutely wonderful, accuracy, trajectory and it comes without horrible recoil or muzzleblast.
Probably not going to sell my 7 short magnum and buy one but can recommend the cartridge without reservation.
 
#60 ·
Kevin,

You've left out pragmatic shooters. We won't fix what ain't broken. We know what we're going to hunt and what will kill it. We know that shot placement is the only metric that matters.

A pragmatic hunter could go out and buy an '06 not for nostalgic reason, but because it will work in light sport rifles and without punishing recoil. Just because it was created a century ago doesn't mean it's been surpassed by improved cartridges.
 
#59 ·
Hi Bandit,35,

No, not really a lot of testing. My dad had loading data from the 70's. I merely used it with the exception of the Nosler 150 BT load.

I am starting to like R-22, which is really MRP. However, it seems as though that IMR-7828 is the best 7MM Rem Mag powder. My not always being bright when light is right in front of me have never used IMR 7828. But I figure that I'll be fixing that soon.

The most velocity I have gotten with 160 grain bullets was with R-22. I got just over 3200 FPS. But I liked my H-4831 better with about 80 FPS less velocity. I did kill a huge 900lb+ Utah bull elk with it. The Partition shot through and through him. He scored 373. So 8- FPS more velocity wasn't going to do a thing for me.

Original 7MM Rem Mag ballistics were impressive. They were taken from a 26" barreled rifle. Since your 26" barreled rifle works better than advertised as most Remingtons will, I'd use it and never look back.

BTW, H-4831 is excellent 7MM Rem Mag powder. It's what I used for my 160 grain Partition load. My load shoots perfectly with no sign of pressure. There is no doubt in my mind that I could increase it, possibly breaking 3200 FPS. But I see no need as it shoots very well now.
 
#61 ·
Since this thread is about comparing the .270 WSM with the .270 Win, I will go with the .270 Win for a lot of reasons, one of which was rereading Ken Waters' "Pet Loads" about the .270 Win last night. Seems as though an All Star lineup of heavy hitter big game hunters considered it to be the single best big game cartridge for all North American hunting, including grizz.

Since I hunt the Rockies exclusively where shots can be long and animas huge, I need a cartridge that will drop animals with well-placed shots. I need a lightweight rifle that I can carry all day long for a least a solid week and at times in very thick brush and timber. 9000'+ altitude is common at the lower end. It has to be accurate. It sounds like I need a Sako in .270 Win. I must be a genius ;-). I already have one ;-) But just about any rifle chambered in the .270 Win will work. Seems like Savage is all the rage now. Tikka would be in top of the lineup, maybe batting clean-up. Remington might be batting lead-off. Gotta work Weatherby in the top half of the line-up. Mr. Browning could work well in the number 3 spot. CZ, a good al-around hitter and fantastic utility player, would see action, probably in the number 5 spot. Mr. Winchester is good enough to reposition in the lineup depending upon whether he's facing a southpaw. Like all managers with All Star players, with this kind of talent, he can change his line-up and know he's gonna win the game.

BTW, did you guys guess by now that the World Series opening game is tonight? We can get our minds of of monster mulies and toad elk...not!

I like the .270 WSM, but in my opinion, and please allow me to repeat this: IN MY OPINION, it was an answer to a question not asked. The .270 Wby Mag was Roy's first cartridge. Ask me & I'd say that it was his best. The .270 Win has been around for closing in on a century and reliably killing all North American big game. There ain't no doubt in my mind that it will be around for long past another century.

I love cartridge debates as much as anyone; however cartridge debates without biology is like a cartridge without powder. You need energy to make a bullet go, and we need knowledge of biology to make sense of cartridge debates. Here's what I do know. Science of biology will win every time, hands down. Nothing in a vertical position will remain so if oxygenated blood stops going to its brain. Therefore, as we know, were we to mess up necessary parts that cause arteries to carry blood to an animal's brain, it will die. What reduces an animal's blood pressure to zero is nowhere near as important as that it is. The most massive elk in North America ain't going to know whether a bullet from .270 Win or a bullet from .300 Wby Mag stopped its oxygenated blood flow. Therefore, cartridge debates ought to be more about reality of how animals die than theoretical physics that might be immaterial. But theoretical physics can be a lot more fun.
 
#63 ·
We all like what we like. No gun writer or even a ballistics chart will likely change our minds, once made up. I sure enough like the .270 Winchester and now own seven rifles so chambered. I also own one rifle chambered in .270 WSM and it is one sweet Model Seven! As far as portability, my WSM version sports a short action and 22" barrel and is shorter than all my .270 Wins save for one compact Husqvarna M4100 with 20.5" barrel that is exactly the same length as the Model Seven. It's also lighter than all but that Husky and an ultralight Remington M700Ti in .270.

As far as performance, ballistics charts show us that typical factory loads favor the WSM by some 270 FPS with 150r loads (2850 vs 3120 FPS; both from 24" tubes). So for the hunter wanting portability along with performance, the WSM is not a bad choice. Comparing both with 22" tubes, I'm picking the one starting out a lot faster as remaining there at 22". Is the added velocity needed? Maybe...maybe not. But I see little wrong with a rifle sporting a shorter OAL and added velocity, myself.

Does anyone need to run down to the LGS and trade their 270 Wins for a WSM version? I didn't. But I did add a very nice rifle with a bit more capability to the same cabinet that houses a 270 win or three. :D I must add in all fairness, if it came down to keeping that sweet Model Seven in .270 WSM OR one of my M70s in .270 Win, the Model Seven would be moving out. There's a difference between practicality and guns we prefer when it comes time to make choices as to which we like.....the most.
 
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