Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 270 WSM vs. 270 winchester

Here's my thoughts on the big fight here. The 270 WCF has been here long, it had a rough start at the beginning, but overtime it has proven it's ability in the fields. There is not a rifle that is not chambered in it, ammo is widely distributed to throughout the nation into even the smallest most deserted ma and pa store. The accuracy is more than enough for taking big game up to 300 yards. You can load up to 5 cartridges and a 22" barrel is all that's needed.

The short and obese 270 wsm, has proven itself a really accurate round. I have seen it punch 1/2" MOA from off the shelf rifles. It has claim it shares of animals, and proven deadly too. The 270 wsm requires a 24" barrel to get up to it's full ptotential, magazines can only hold 3, ammo is pretty hard to find and bullet selection is lean unless you reload. It claims to be of lighterweight, but most rifles I have seen is just as heavy as standard action. A short bolt throw might be of advantage some say, but really? With the longer heavier bullets, I find it to run on par with the old WCF, as the case can only hold so much powder. Also the WSM is running hotter pressures that the WCF, this leading to barrel life.

I have come to a conclusion that the 270 WSM, will suffer from sales from the 270 Win, only time will tell. If not, it will surely die.

IMHO and with no exp. with the 270 wsm.... If you need more than the 270 wcf, be it a flatter trajectory or if you want to throw heavier bullets... and your going to be able to only hold 3 down etc... You may aswell get a real magnum in the .277 caliber. And that my friend is a Weatherby.

Jake

The WSM appears to be doing just fine. I'd be happy with either.

AMEN BROTHER!

270 WSM is just another choice in the 270 caliber line up. I have one and like it. I bought it because I wanted something in 270 cal. Figgured what the heck. Has worked out OK IMHO.

+++1 on that my friend.

\A magnum 270 in a short action seems to combine some pretty good attributes to keep it around for a pretty good time.

My two cents...............

The 270 Win is as accurate as the 270 WSM and will take the same animals at the same ranges. The WSM is only a couple hundred FPS faster at the muzzle, and that difference is diminished greatly at 500 yds.

The 270 WSM will have much shorter barrel life than the Winny, and at times the WSM can be a fussy feeder. The 270 Win almost always feeds as smooth as glass. Finally, you get just about as much a boost for a 24" barreled 270 Win over a 22" barreled 270 Win and you will get with a 24" 270 WSM over a 22" 270 WSM.

If you want flatter trajectory, get a 270 Wby or a 7 STW. If you want more power, get a 30-06. if you want both a flatter trajectory and more power, get a 300 Winny, a 300 Wby, or a 300 RUM.

Agreed, for the most part.
Personally, if I need more than my .270WCF has to offer, I'd be looking at something in a .30, .33 or .35.

........I`ll disagree with some of your analogy and I don`t own either 270.

I don`t consider either the 270 WSM case or the 300 WSM case to be "obese" as you say. I consider them as being more efficient for their length regardless of powder capacity. The WSSMs DO have an "obese" case in relation to the bullet and neck diameter.

Regardless of what particular barrel length is needed to realize the full potential from the 270 WSM, the 270 WCF is nevertheless a good solid 175-200 fps behind the 270 WSM, assuming both are fired from the SAME barrel length, with the same bullet and bullet weight. If you wish to consider a difference of 175-200 fps to be "on par" that is your choice. The impact or killing effect on game when hit downrange won`t make much difference, but I don`t consider that large of a difference to be exactly,,"on par!"

The 270 WCF magazine holds 4 + 1 in the chamber, totaling 5. The 270 WSM hold 3 in the magazine + 1 in the chamber totalling 4. A difference of only one!...Whooopie!... If anyone hunting with a 270 WSM, ever has a need to unload 4 shots into the game animal being hunted, that doesn`t exactly say too much for the hunter,,,,does it?? Same thing holds true with someone using a 270 WCF having to fire 5 rounds. With all the game I have killed, I`ve never had the need to virtually fire all the rounds remaining in my magazine after the first shot.

270 WSM factory ammo hard to find?? It`s everywhere out here in the west!! May not be in some very small ma and pa stores where you may be. But I can`t imagine any 270 WSM owners who hunt within the lower 48 or anywhere else, who won`t take their own reloaded ammo on a hunt with them, or factory ammo previously purchased before their trip.

The 270 WSM as does the 300 WSM, do operate at higher pressures. They are designed as such. This may result in SOME cases of shorter barrel life, IF one shoots hundreds if not thousands of rounds per year and uses consistent hot loads. But for the average shooter and hunter, a 270 WSM barrel, will last many years with good accuracy, IF re-loaded for AND fired responsibly. Some added common sense will increase barrel life? I think so!

The 270 WSM has taken away sales from the 270 WCF,,and visa versa!! Both have taken away sales from the other!

The 270 WSM "WILL NOT" or in no way,,"surely die!" If there were any past, current or future marketing indicators of slumping 270 WSM sales, then why do rifle makers such as Savage, Kimber, Remington, Weatherby, Nosler, Browning and others chamber it? It seems to me that they would have alot more marketing knowledge regarding past, current and future projections or trends than either you, me and most of the general shooting public.

Nope!....The 270 WSM won`t be going obsolete because of the 270 Win and likewise, the 270 Win won`t be going obsolete because of the 270 WSM!! They will continue to compete for many many years in the future. There are no indicators or evidence to believe otherwise.

I just love how the bolt of a Pre-64 Winchester M70 in 270 Winchester feels. Slides home like a vault. The bolt slides along the raceways as if its on rollers. The cartridge guides into the chamber smooth and effortless.

Chambering a round in my buddy's Remington M700 CDL B&C is like being a virgin again. First, you try to force it. Then, it doesn't want to go in. You back in and around until you get fed up and shove it in the hole by hand.

This conversation will likely go on as long as the great 30/06 vs 270 conversation did years back.

I've had, I think 3 270 WSM's,and can't get my arms around the cartridge.I've messed with so many sub-30 caliber cartridges of greater capacity than the 270 Win that I've lost count.

How much faster the WSM is than the 270 Win depends on what ammo you shoot and who is doing the loading. There can be no doubt that the WSM is faster because it has greater powder capacity,but the 270 Winchester is capable of out-performing most of the shooters who anguish over ballistic tables wondering which cartridge to buy.

I prefer the old round because I have used it a great deal,and seen it used on a lot of animals. I like the rifles it comes in,the magazine capacity,and the way the cartridge functions through those rifles.With a couple of exceptions,the rifles chambered for the WSM's are not terribly lightweight, and those that are get a bit unpleasant to shoot.

I like that the 270 Win fits nicely into a 22" tube,which makes it as handy in the brush as it does in the open. I also like the fact that load development is fast and easy with the 270 Winchester,since I don't like the time wasted in load development and chronographing etc. I have found over the years that if a 270 Winchester does not like either 60-RL22, or 61-H 4831 with a good 130 gr bullet (I lke Sierra's, Partitions and Aframes) you have a sick rifle.

Any real difference in field performance between the WSM and the 270 Win is going to depend more on the guy doing the shooting than any real performance edge one way or the other.

When it comes to faster cartridges than the 270 Winchester,the WSM holds no particular fascination for me because I have been hunting with 270 and 7mm WSM's for well over 30 years; they used to call them 7mm Remington Magnums. Conversations about short actions cause me to doze off.....

Most if not all of the WSMs will bite the dust slowly. They were created as a marketing ploy to sell rifles, but on an odd principle - lighter rifles by virtue of shorter magazines, but in larger capacity cases that required longer barrels. In fairness, some of these short action rifles handle very well indeed and are sufficiently light weight (Kimber M84, for one).

Agree w/ the commentary above that the .270 Win will be left standing when the .270 WSM is in history's dustbin.

If a person really needs/wants significantly more velocity than the .270, the .270 Weatherby is the ticket. It is a superb cartridge that offers much more powder capacity, while retaining standard length action. The other options is changing caliber, to something like 25-06.

You guys that think the 270 WSM and the 300 WSM are going away are simply nuts. They are waaaaayyyy too popular and in many locals are outselling the older calibers by a good bit.
There's nothing in the world wrong with the old calibers but the WSM's do have attributes that many favor. They are here to stay.................................................DJ

I just spit my coffee all over my keyboard. First time in months that has happend. Thanks a lot.
I love it.

My 2 cents. I've never been without a 270 win. and doubt I ever will be. My all time favorite rd. But I do really like my Kimber 8400 270 wsm. It's faster and lighter Than any 270 win I've owned. I can't believe that it and the 300wsm are ever going away. Both are very easy to load for and very accurate. As to barrel life any of the high intensity rds. are going to cut barrel life.

My personal choice for my next rifle would be the 270 WSM.

WSMs are selling like hotcakes in western Canada, particularly the 300 and 270. They're going to be around for a long, long time. I'd suggest that eventually they'll become over time, to a large degree the new standard by which to measure other cartridges in much the same way as were the 30.06 Springfield and 308 Win.

That's not to slight those two venerable old bullets and some of their offspring, but rather just a realization that things progress over time.

WSMs simply are a more efficient package with significant improvements where it counts, ballistics.

And they kick noticeably less than other magnums, no small benefit, both in marketing and field use, particularly amongst novice shooters...which in large part is why a 270 WSM will almost certainly and dramatically outsell a 270 Roy, not to mention price and availability of ammo.

FWIW.

And that would be a fine choice....one that many will also be making far into the future.......

Can't dislike what either the .270 or 270WSM does, but at the same time, I've also always agreed with what the majority of members here have always said, even those who lean heavily towards the standard .270. That is: All things equal, a bullet traveling 100-150 fps faster than another really makes very little difference down range (terminally, ballistics, etc.).

The 200-250 fps difference between these cartridges, makes that choice, for me anyway, so much easier......IMHO.

YMMV........

Thinking about this, interesting aside...

In the past 100 years, the biggest influence on what ultimately dictated a "standard by which to measure all other calibers" was in fact the military. Wide availability of both rifles and ammo in 30.06 made it remarkably popular for many decades...and still is. When both the US and Nato turned to the 308, close to the same performance as the 30.06 in a short action, it then became the standard, again in large part because of inexpensive and wide availability of both ammo and brass.

This is even more intriguing in that, had arguably wiser heads prevailed at the time, the good ol' 30.06 may well have never come into being in the first place. It was more nationalistic and male ego than anything else that precluded adoption of an already proven and exceedingly capable military round in the 7x57 Mauser, which went on to set its own standard in much of the rest of the world. And in Scandinavia few can figure out why anyone needs anything bigger than a 6.5x55 Swede for anything and everything up to the size of a moose.

However, obviously the 223 adopted latest by the military, while exceedingly popular, will never be considered a legitimate big game cartridge.

Point being, short of something new and wonderful becoming the military's next standard round, which doesn't appear to be in the cards any time soon, the operating assumption of the last 100 years pretty much no longer applies.

Whatever caliber ultimately emerges as the new "standard" one of these days, it will have to get their on its own merits as a big game cartridge without help from anywhere else.

I'd suggest that the 300 WSM may well be a candidate for that next new standard, democratically elected so by hunters at the cash register.

I always think back to this for perspective: I once casually threw a rock through my chrony and got 70 fps. That's around 47 mph. A baseball pitcher who throws 90 mph is throwing 132 fps. So in the world of 3k+ cartridges, how significant is 100 or 200 fps? For me, not much and significant power advantages start higher than that.

IMO, I think the perceived advantage of the WSM is more marketing than any real world advantage. Both Ken Waters and Jack O'Connor found 100 fps difference between a standard with a 22" and 24" barrel lengths with same loads. I've chrony'd standard Win loads in my Rem M700 (22" barrel) with 130 grn Hornady bullets that averaged 3122 fps and were under max load. Even if I only got 50 or 60 fps more out of my Hornady load in a 24" barrel, I'm within 100 fps of factory WSM ammo. Maybe WSM loaders get more than factory though, I dunno.

I would really like to see a side by side comparison with same rifles, barrel lengths, same day, same factory ammo/bullets, etc. I think it would be interesting. In the end there will be some velocity advantage in the WSM case capacity is more, but is there any field advantage? I think it's minimal at best (and more so with the 150 grn bullets) and I don't think there's anything WSM can do the standard can't. Bottom line though is it boils down to personal choice and no one is wrong for choosing either, they're both excellent cartridges in a great caliber that will both get the job done. Pick one and have at it.