Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles WSM question.

300 WSM short action = 300 Win. Mag. long action.
7mm WSM short action = 7mm Rem. Mag. long action.
270 WSM short action is 200 fps faster than 270 Win. long action.

Why is the 270 WSM disliked by many hunters/shooters?

.270 guys are just wierd.

The others are being compared to other "magnums" and the associated cost of their ammo and brass. The .270 WSM is being compared to one of the most popular "standard" cartridges on Earth and its inexpensive ammo/brass.

Is the 200 fps (which is only about 100 fps out at 400 yards) really worth all the extra recoil, powder and expense? Not when the .270 Winchester keeps killing schitt with aplomb on every continent.

Because the .270 is superflous in the first place.

The 7mms are much mo betta.

So, why take superflous to the next level? Wait, that can be said for all the WSMs...

Never mind.

Sides....

the .270 plain works as it ever did, w/o the extra fps.

I have both and really like the 270 wsm.

This is what I don't get. Everyone likes the 257 WBY but look at the ballistics for the 270 wsm with the 110 ttsx. Then you can still shoot 130,140 and 150 grain bullets in the 270 wsm. All that performance from a short action rifle and the brass does not cost $2 apiece.

Dink

The gunmakers I talk to up here tell me the .270 WSM is one of the most popular of the WSMs for custom rifles. GRF

That 110 grain TTSX was a large part of the reason I picked up a 270 wsm for my wife last fall.

Thats because the 270 wsm has everything over the standard cal.listed and thier better then the 7mm an 300 wsm cal..Just can't get more out of 300 win mag to 300wsm or 7mm look at facks

Nuff said.

Very little add'l recoil, cost or powder . . .

I think it's funny that everyone likes to mention how it's only a little faster, but then harp on all the extra recoil, powder and expense like it's hugely different.

The bottom line is there's pretty much zero added lethality for 10 - 20% more of everything else. I don't
get how anyone would put up with that...other than for the sake of variety.

This coming from a HUGE .270 Roy fan.

Pretty much sums up the difference between the 270WSM and the 270 Roy too . . .

A man after Roy Weatherby's own heart.......

When comparing equal barrel lengths, none of the above is true.

Which is why the 26 inch barreled short mags look so good when being compared to 22-24 inch barrels in "non-short mags".......





Because my 25 inch Douglas barreled 270W thinks it's a 270 WSM.......and haven't found any other really compelling reason to snag a 270WSM........

Another example is the 25-06. Try finding that cartridge in a 22 inch factory rifle. Remington was no dummy--they weren't going to let a hopped up 257R with 22 inch bbl show up their new cartridge.....


Casey

I don't like the 270 win. but i like the wsm. Talk about weird!

The problem is all the hype and hoopla that came with the short mags. The 270 Winchester is such an ideal deer and all around game caliber it is a hard act to follow.

The most useful shorties to me are the 270 and 325 as they don't duplicate existing cartridges like the others, or should I say they are less redundant.

I completely agree tejano. One thing I'll add though is it would be awfully boring if we only had just one rifle. They are a lot of hoopla and hype, I'll give it that. I just bought a 300 wsm and it is damned accurate, but can it do anything better than what my 300 win mag can do? NOPE. Could I live without the 300 mags altogether and just use my 30-06 for the rest of my hunting life? Yes, but it would just be boring.

I have the 270 WSM and I happen to love it. I like the fact that it has a short action and a 24" barrel which makes for a nice balancing and pointing gun. The .5-.75 groups I get from 140 gr Accubonds and the instant death suffered by every animal I've ever fired at just add to my confidence. I have or have had rifles in 243, 25-06, 270 Win, 7mm-08, 7mm Rem Mag, 30-06 and 300 WSM since owning this gun and I can honestly say I could now get along just fine with just the 270 WSM if I needed to. This is the gun that comes out of the safe when it's time to hunt 99% of the time. The areas I hunt tend to be wide open spaces ( Western ND, Eastern MT and West TX) so the flat trajectory and wind bucking capabilities can get used to their full potential.

I have always thought there was something strange about the whole .270 Winchester vs.270 WSM debate. Critics of the WSM always state there is only 200 fps difference between the two, so, whats the point? But on the flip side, I get so disgusted hearing that a .30-06 is a marginal round for anything except deer, you really need a .300WM or even better a .300WSM, if you want to kill elk, moose, and, Lord help us, big bears. Me thinks people spend too much time reading about cartridge performance, not enough time spent in the field or at the range with said cartridges.

Short action rifle vs. Long. Lighter, shorter rifle with equal if not better performance than the their mag counterparts (7wsm & 300wsm).

That's the main advantage that everyone has seemed to miss here.

I prefer short actions and TXRam did have some influence on my Savage 16 purchase a few years ago, my first and only magnum and 270. But I disagree with the velocity increase vs the additional powder and recoil.

Using Hodgdon data, 150gr max loads for 270WSM and 270 Win, the 270WSM provides a much lower velocity increase in relation to powder use and recoil.

2850 vs 3071

+7.2% velocity
+18.9% powder
+22.7% recoil