[Cbrown2008]

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.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

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.

 

[Sinbad12-2007]

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.

 

[Jakeway]

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. ...

Actually, that was God's Son, but He thought he was Jack O'Connor.

 

[TMan]

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.

 

[GMFWoodchuck]

And I'm old. I like old things.

LOL. I'm not old. And I like old things.

 

[Curt NCP]

I own a 270 WSM and say go with the old 270 Winchester

 

[old roper]

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.

 

[big dan]

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...

 

[fred243]

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.

 

[teacherboy]

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.

 

[snuff789]

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!

 

[kc outdoorsman]

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

 

[landroverking]

I too think the WSM are a passing thing, go with the 270 Winchester.

 

[fritz1]

Deffinitely go with 270Win.!!!!!! I wouldnt own a short mag of any description, if I did it would be cause I got a deal that I couldnt pass up, and beleive me it would be rechambered shortly there after.

 

[Cbrown2008]

Thanks for the help everybody. I will be going with the standard .270.

 

[magnumitis]

The differences between the two are very small ballistically.

The difference is basically 9%.

For comparison, it's statistically the same difference between the .30-'06 and the .300 Win Mag.

You decide whether that's an difference you want or need.

 

[broom_jm]

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.

 

[magnumitis]

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%.

 

[Tnhunter]

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.