.270 vs .270 WSM

[LostinTexas_45]

Which do you prefer and why? Also list any hunting experience you may have with either cartridge

 

[mdwest]

Two different cartridges with 2 different purposes in my opinion..

the real value in the 270 is it is inherently accurate, shoots flat, and produces low recoil...

The 270 WSM is a true magnum cartridge.. what the 270 does in terms of accuracy and shooting "flat" at a distance, the 270 WSM does better.. 270 WSM has benchrest accuracy capability and maintains enough speed that it can be shot at large game animals hundreds of yards further than the old school 270...but.. there is a price to pay for that..

ammo is significantly more expensive and harder to find (270 is going to be in every wal-mart in north america.. 270 WSM, not so much).. and youre going to get the magnum recoil that goes with the magnum cartridge..

So my question would be... "whats the intended purpose?"....

If you have a recoil sensitive shooter, a young lady, or a small stature guy looking for a "deer" rifle to shoot 300 yards or less.. Its hard to beat a .270 IMO..

If youre heading out on a mule deer hunt in the mountains where you think you might be taking a 450 yard shot across a valley.. I might think about the extra ooomph the WSM will give..

I also dont think I would want the WSM on a hunt where I thought a 50-100 yard shot was a real possibility.. its just too fast for that (IMO)... but the 270 would do just fine at 50 yards with a good bullet on an elk or a mule deer..

 

[flat8]

I don’t own a .270 WSM, but the .270 Winchester is (currently) my favorite cartridge for mule deer and down in N. America. Mine is a Nosler 48, and it absolutely loves 130 grain Accubond bullets. Last animal taken was a pronghorn at 200+ yards - hit, expanded , fully traversed the vitals before lodging in far shoulder. I understand that the .270 WSM is faster, but it’s also louder. I do have a .300 WSM, and I do like it, but I just like the full size rounds better. They feed smoothly and I like the longer action. I’ll go with my .300 Win Mag over the .300 WSM if that says anything!

 

[Eventually_Africa_Again]

Wanting to toss my 2 cents into the pit here. My first experience with a .270 was in Africa, I used the PH's rifle to take several animals including an Impala at 200 yards (straight through the heart) and a Nyala at about 50 yards. It worked perfectly on both, so perfectly in fact that when I got back to the states I made it my (finally successful!) mission to purchase the same rifle (old 1970's Brno). I really enjoy the one I picked up, I've taken it to the range many times and I'm not sure I could ask for a better combination of light recoil, laser accuracy, good knock down power and cheap, readily available bullets. No experience with the WSM, but I don't think I could improve much on what I have!

 

[lwaters]

Looking at my manual these short mags don't have much over the 270 280 or 3006. There about the same thing in a shorter case. May give you 5o yards
more range. They won't bet the full size magnums with the heavy bullets.

 

[ChrisG]

The differences between the two ballistically is so small in the real world that you could pick or choose one or the other. It will quite literally, make zero difference while hunting. Any ballistic claim that the WSM is "flatter shooting" is only going to matter at distances far beyond where most riflemen should ever pot a shot at a living animal. From the data I have here, it appears the .270 WSM only has a 80-100 fps lead on the standard .270 which means it is at best only going to extend your shootable distance 25 yards or so. They are pretty much the same cartridge. So it is 6 one, half-dozen the other. Pick either, no animal will ever notice the difference other than one can be put into a short action; also an "advantage" that is mostly smoke and mirrors these days IMHO. I would take either and not worry myself about the nuances between different grades of adequate.

 

[Nosler guy]

Looking at my manual these short mags don't have much over the 270 280 or 3006. There about the same thing in a shorter case. May give you 5o yards
more range. They won't bet the full size magnums with the heavy bullets.

X2

 

[MAdcox]

I do have a .300 WSM, and I do like it, but I just like the full size rounds better. They feed smoothly and I like the longer action. I’ll go with my .300 Win Mag over the .300 WSM if that says anything!

I agree with @flat8 .
270 is my pet round so admittedly I’m biased.
But I have a 300wsm. I love the rifle, but if I had it to do over I would go with the traditional 300 WinMag. Cheaper, easier to buy ammo. Easier case for reloading, equal performance.
My dad shoots a 270wsm and it is a very good round, just doesn’t do enough for me to beat out the classic 270win

 

[JakeH]

Give me the original .270 Win. There’s jus not enough difference in performance to justify the difference in price of ammunition between the classic and the WSM.

 

[lwaters]

I have the 300 RCM. It has a 20 in. Barrel and is a handy rifle. I chronographed a little over 300 with 165 and 2825 with the 180. It is just a short handy 06. It reloads easier because it has no rebated rim. That is with superformace powder.

 

[Red Leg]

Two different cartridges with 2 different purposes in my opinion..

The 270 WSM is a true magnum cartridge.. what the 270 does in terms of accuracy and shooting "flat" at a distance, the 270 WSM does better.. 270 WSM has benchrest accuracy capability and maintains enough speed that it can be shot at large game animals hundreds of yards further than the old school 270...but.. there is a price to pay for that..

No not really. You are drinking the gun-writer Kool-Aid w/r to the .270 WSM. At most it has a 100 fps advantage with a crankier case to feed. The equals no meaningful advantage in the field at any range. The .270 has been built as beautiful, perfectly balanced rifles for nearly four generations. What is to fix? Like a number of "new" cartridges, the .270 WSM is a solution to a non-existent problem created to harvest gun buyers more than game.

 

[lwaters]

It a ploy to sell more and I have fell for it myself. My friend has a gun shop and he said sales are terrible. Everybody has over bought.

 

[Graham Hunter]

I own 6 270 Wins. I have had one since I was 14 which was a couple of days ago.
Have 2 WSM's. All are shooters but when it comes right down to it their isn't a pinch worth of Coon Poop difference. I would take a 270 Win anywhere as the ammunition is easier to obtain.

 

[tarbe]

Considering my rule of never hunting with a cartridge that is younger than me...I have to go with the .270 Winchester!

And yes, I have had both and even killed stuff with the WSM before I adopted the above rule.

 

[Pheroze]

I had a 270 wsm and I felt it kicked way more than I liked. It was a hard jab and I sold it. I have no problem shooting my 375 so I think there is something about those short cases that seems to generate unpleasant recoil. Admittedly, I have a sample size of 1 but inexperience has never dissuaded me from having a campfire opinion

 

[Edge]

Reloader 26 brings the 270 Win into 270 WSM territory with 150gr bullets, over 3000fps! Alliants data and many shooters using it are over 3K with 150 gr bullets.

I’ve been struggling with getting good velocity and accuracy out of my Tikka 270 WSM without trashing my brass or having sticky bolt lift at book max loads. It’s been a very trying experience with the 270WSM.

I’m going to try some 140 gr Trophy Bonded Tipped in place of the Accubonds and see what happens.

Otherwise a new barrel in a different chambering is in its future...

 

[meigsbucks]

The .270 Win. may be my favorite cartridge for game under 400# and is capable of larger. Flat shooting, accurate and light recoiling. It does well with a 22" barrel. Ammo can be found anywhere and in every configuration imaginable and brass for reloading is available from all the manufacturers.
I've considered a .270 WSM, but for the additional 100-150 fps, more recoil, the need for a longer barrel, less ammo selection, less ammo availability, limited suppliers of brass for reloading, to me it isn't worth it.
If you can't do it with a .270 Win., your next choice should be a .300 or .338 mag. Just my opinion.

 

[mdwest]

No not really. You are drinking the gun-writer Kool-Aid w/r to the .270 WSM.

There might be some truth in that statement..

I may have to go back and figure out which color I got tricked into drinking... red or purple...

 

[LostinTexas_45]

There might be some truth in that statement..

I may have to go back and figure out which color I got tricked into drinking... red or purple...

I actually saw an article called “top 10 most overrated cartridges” on wideopenspaces.com and .270sm was on that list. The writer said basically the same as what most of the other guys on this thread have said.

 

[Red Leg]

There might be some truth in that statement..

I may have to go back and figure out which color I got tricked into drinking... red or purple...

LOL. I've done it myself - remind me to post a picture of my 6.5 Creedmoor which performs suspiciously like my pre-war 6.5x57 mauser on a mannlicher schoenauer action (converted, in turn, from 6.5x54 which was already just about perfect as a 6.5 - ask Karamojo Bell). This has been going on a long, long time.