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.

Thought provoking indeed...........

I also own a couple 300WSM's and it would very likely be my "if you had to own but just one gun/cartridge", answer.

Both the WSM's we've mentioned are very popular these days. Their demise is as assured as is our POTUS's "Stimulus Package" actually working. I see their sales becoming more brisk in the future, not less.

Both the 270WSM and 300WSM have found favor amongst many hunters/shooters, experienced and those less so. These "new" cartridges offer us more choices, whether really necessary or not, whether if fills a gap or niche or not. The general public gets dictated to enough with even more of the same on the way. Having and then making our own choices for our own reasons is a positive thing, no matter the reasoning or even the outcome. All a learning experience.

Great to have choices and so far.....no regrets.

Assuming ammo manufacturers test using the same parameters, IOW all things being equal, for comparable cartridges, such as barrel lengths, here's a side by side comparison chart from Federal, using Nosler 140 gr. Accubonds...





At 100 yds, no elk or moose is going to know the difference.

At 350 yds, maybe so, as well as in the hit or miss dept.

Relatively small margin, but little things add up...which seems to fuel the (to me, inexplicable) craze over Ackley Improved wildcats.

If they didn't, we'd all still be hunting with 30.40 Krags or 303 Brits, eh?

I agree...good to have choices. I have and enjoy both the 270WCFand the WSM.

But it seems to me the argument regarding the difference is essentially the same as the discussioins about the 30/06vs300WM, 280vs7mmRM, 25/06vs257WM, etc. The mags have about 15% to 25% more capacity. According to JB's rule of thumb, that means an apples to apples advantage of 4% to 7% velocity potential. Or about 150 to 200fps.

Significant difference? Is it worth it? We each have to decide for ourselves. No right or wrong, IMO.

I'll bet half the rifles purchased start off at the sporting goods counter like this...

"So, what's the best all around caliber these days for deer, and capable for elk, too, if I ever get the chance?"

"You would want one of these then, these are outselling everything else by leaps and bounds, and everyone seems to love 'em!"...

And then the clerk hands him a XYZ brand rifle in 300 WSM.

"Does everything a 30.06 or .308 will do, but better. Every bit as good as a 300 Winchester Magnum, without the kick! Notice how light that puppy is?"

"You don't say? Hmmm..."

Cha-ching! Cha-ching!

That simple. Once that snowball gets rolling, there's no stopping it.

Once upon a time, it would have been a 30.06, almost hands down, 19 times out 20.

IMHO, this is like asking which flavor of apple is better. I own, and have killed with both. I absolutely LOVE both. Mostly because of the rifles they are in. Both rifles are absolutely tack drivers, capable of producing one hole groups, ifin' all goes well (ie I shoot like I should). I reload for my WSM, and it LOVES the 140 NAB's. I shoot factory for my WCF, and it LOVES the 140 NAB's.

Give me one gun to grab, for anything and I will feel 100% confident with either one.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised at the difference in energy on that chart. Averages between 400 and 500 lbs all the way out to 400 yds!

That's quite a bit of difference in thump, about a good 20% or so.

I agree...no right or wrong, IMHO as well........

From my own experience with the 140gr. AB out of my 270WSM, I'm getting a bit over 3,200+ fps. As the graph clearly shows (and I'd expect that Federal would have no reason to promote one cartridge over the other......sales a sale), the 270WSM outpaces the standard .270 by 250 fps, which my #'s reflect as well.

Now............the question (even though we ALL see things a bit differently). Where, as you say, does the "significant difference", start? It surely starts somewhere, on that I'm sure that we can all agree, but where?

As I said earlier, almost every post comparing cartridges seems to use the 100-150 fps difference as a template for "not significant enough to make a difference". OK, I can easily live with that. But we're not talking about that here. We're talking about 250 fps difference, all else being equal, especially while using Federal's own #'s, more importantly, not a 270WSM advocates #'s nor a .270WIN advocates #'s.

Whether JB's rule of thumb applies or not or is even a good indicator at all of such things, I surely don't know.......I'm just stating the fact that there is clearly 250 fps of difference between these 2 cartridges and that seems pretty significant, IMHO.........what say you? If not (and we're talkin' nearly the full length of a football field per second faster), where would we now draw that "significant line"? Since the 100-150 fps template now no longer really helps to bolster a particular set of people's beliefs regarding these 2 cartridges.......where to now?

It would seem unreasonable to argue the #'s as this and other graphs clearly show, but I'll bet that the 100-150 fps "insignificant difference" fallback line will covertly move it's way on up another 100 fps or so..........

But you're exactly right.....we each need to decide for ourselves. Obviously you have......you've got both!!

Well, I can't resist sticking my 2 cents in on this. I own & shoot both, a pre-64 mod. 70 for the .270 Win. and a Kimber Montana for the WSM. My .270 Win. is all I've ever needed here in Ak. with the exception of my .338 for moose, big bears or perhaps elk. I think it's perfect for sheep, caribou, etc. Anyway, what I've found is that using 150 gr. Partitions in both (sorry, don't use 130's or 140's), I get 2930 fps from the chrono with my .270 Win. and a 57 gr. charge of Rldr-22, one gr. under max from the book. This rifle will consistantly group into less than an inch. My .270 WSM with the same bullet & 69.5 gr. of Retumbo, gives 3166 fps. I get around 1" groups with this rifle.
The .270 Win. has been re-stocked in an H-S Precision fiber glass stock - Yes, the stock had to be modified some. This rig weighs a shade over 9 lbs. as I recall. Kinda heavy for sure. The Kimber weighs what? about 7 1/2 lbs. with scope? I have the same scope on both rifles so no diffeerence there. The feeding in the Kimber is fine and except for some other problems initially, the function and accuracy are at least satisfactory for me. Now that the "problems" with my Kimber have been ironed out, I'm probably gonna use the rifle on our annual moose and perhaps a short caribou hunt this year. We won't be going after sheep this year but I want to see what it'll do in the field. I personally would use my .270 Win. on moose but I want to try this rifle.
I originally bought the Kimber to see what all of the "hullabaloo" about the WSM's was about. As a kid, I'll freely admit to reading and listening too much to Jack O'Conner.
From my experience, limited thought it is, I don't see either the .270 or .300 WSM's just dying out. 7mm WSM may be another question. I do think that the cost of WSM ammo is ridiculous and that loading for them should be seriously considered.
WOW! What a diatribe. Off my stump for now. Just my thoughts tho.
Bear in Fairbanks

I think that 250 is a significant difference. But I also think that the factories load the WSM at higher pressures than the WCF.

But, even with that I think there is a significant difference in the two cartridges. When I'm going to hunt where there is a reasonable chance of the range of a shot being close to my person limit, I'll take the WSM. But having said that, it's hard for me to imagine a shot wthat I would take with one that I wouldn't take with the other. Bottom line for me is there is a LOT of overlap in all the various cartridges we can choose from. And that's a good thing.

I totally agree...........

BTW - I just purchased a new 270WSM and will be tryin' it out with the new 130gr. TTSX's. A bit too windy and cold here lately, but when she hits about 55-60 degrees, I'm on it. Shooting in colder temps can be a bad thing, especially during load development.........

As I said earlier, my other 270WSM usin' 140gr. AB's gave me 3,200+ fps. I'm not sure what to expect with these 130gr. TTSX's, but I'm thinkin' I should get close to 3,300 fps. Have you or do you use 130 grainers in yours? If so, any recipes? I am very much a RL22 guy, for most of my rifles/cartridges. Thanks.


Take care.........

Same analogy I've always used. Hard to figure when guys get excited about a velocity difference similar to a thrown rock. Same when thinking in percentage terms. Is even a 10% difference ever meaningful? I mean would it feel any different if the car that hit you was going 30mph vs 33mph?

If 150fps isn't a meaningful difference nobody would have ever developed magnums. Most certainly not Ackley Improved versions.

Shooting the same bullets and same powder my results mirror the velocities recorded by others posters on this thread. The 270 WSM is 150-200fps faster than the 270 Winchester.

I still think that the bigger difference between the WCF and WSM is the rifles that they come in. I can work a short action from the shoulder looking through the scope with no problem but with a long or long magnum action working the bolt either hits me in the face or comes too close. Now this might be just do to my shooting stance but you might try for yourself if you find the same difference. I also prefer a shorter, lighter handier rifle for most hunting. The reasons for a lighter rifle are obvious when walking but I also find a shorter rifle handier in a tight tree stand etc. where it doesn't bump as many branches etc.. A short action does make a bit of a difference here. Here's a pic of 2 24" barreled rifles, a 270 WSM Kimber and a 270 WCF Beretta Mato side by side:




Both are nice rifles and shoot well but the Kimber is certainly handier.............................................DJ

You guys could always upgrade to a .25!

I don't doubt there's a heck of a lot of people out there who THINK a 150 fps of extra bullet speed at the muzzle is important. My point was - that - on game - I would bet the difference could NEVER be quantified.

A lot of great posts with good input. Velocities with your 140 AB also match the difference of what I get with the Win and that bullet, 2950 fps. But here some food for thought....if what Waters and O'Connor found is typical, that could put my velocity to around 3050....150 less than the WSM. Basically the velocity difference of what a man can throw an object. One day I'll get a 24" barrel and see if I get similar results. I doubt Federal has a preference either way, but I believe when ammo companies do velocities for their ammo (as in the graph), 24" barrels are used for non magnum cartridges and 26" for magnum FWIW.

I think it's a really tough question on where a significant difference starts...how do you quantitate that? Esp when the speeds are in the 3k range. I can say I don't think it's unreasonable to say 250, but based on my rock test, I tend to think 300 is a good solid start but in reality will it make a difference in same weight/caliber bullets? But I think we all agree if someone had neither and went to buy one a 270 caliber rifle, they could not go wrong with either regardless.

I personally don't think 150 fps is meaningful. Remember we're talking a velocity difference of what a man can throw an object. I shot deer with different loads and same weight bullets with 250 fps difference and did not see any difference I could quantify. I agree it is safe to say with same length barrels, 150-200 fps difference is typical and it really boils down to personal choice. If I liked a rifle and it was a WSM, I'd buy it. BTW, nice rifles you have there...esp the Kimber.

magnumb:

Haven't tried the TTSX's. My WSM makes itty bitty groups with 130 Accubonds pushed by IMR7828. Four shots last fall at 4 deer from 140 to 280yds. None took a step. All exited. Pretty much duplicates what my pet 264 does with 125gr Partitions.(Dang it, more overlap! )

Let us know how the TTSX'x work!

Can't resist here either. Of all the "short fats" developed in the last ten years, the WSM's will survive easily above all other. The 7WSM may suffer, but that is not the fault of its ballistics. The "M" in WSM sells the cartridge. You can post all your charts, graphs and assorted ballistics, it is the "M".
The average rifle buyer doesn't post here. For us loony's, we tend to analyze, rationalize and maybe even let our emotions guide us.
For me, I have and like both. The Kimber Montana 270WSM, is a handier package than the 8400. The extra 150fps is a bonus. You can have your prejudice against one or the other but the WSM's aren't going anywhere for a long time.

I will! Thanks for the input. Congrat's on all your deer, especially the way that they met their demise.....impressive.

BTW - Don't mean to bother you again and only if you choose to, but what velocities are you gettin'? PM me if you like. Not lookin' for charge weights.....I don't go there and don't offer mine up as well.

I understand that accuracy trumps all, but it's nice to know ball park stuff. As I said earlier, I use RL22 in all 3 of my WSM's as well. I've found that in most instances, I can get a little more speed with RL series powder over most all others, plus the accuracy I desire. Again, we all have our own ideas on such stuff, but since I have a bunch of jugs of RL22 (all the same lot#), it is my go to powder.

I must admit that I recently sold off some 14 boxes of the 140gr. AB's that shot well in my 270WSM, as well as some 12 boxes of the 110gr. AB's that also shot lights out in my 25-06. All with their respective, same lot #s as well. Why? To be quite honest, but a bit embarrassed as well, holding such large quantities of the above with all the "no-lead" issues circulating and getting much more press these days, I became a little freaked out about taking a big hit if all of a sudden WA state also follows suit with what CA has done......not good. I may be over reacting, I certainly hope so, but I was not willing to take the chance. I've also had spectacular results on a couple elk with my 300WSM while using 180gr. TSX's....so I'm confident in my bullet selection anyway. I opted for the TTSX's for these 2 deer cartridges as I'm wanting to ensure, as much as possible, quicker expansion on deer given their less hardy disposition, all the way 'round. We'll see............

I always keep 100+ handloads for each cartridge I own anyway, so I could probably hunt the rest of my life on those loaded AB's I kept, but I do find plenty of time to be at the range......so there's no stash ever really large enough. I bought 7 boxes each of the TTSX's for my 25-06 (100gr.) and 270WSM (130gr.). I had 2 boxes already for the 25-06 and they shot well. I'm working on the bullet seating depth for that particular bullet/cartridge combo now, as I just recently figured out the best charge weight. I hope that the 270WSM likes the 130gr. TTSX's all on it's own, if not, I don't mind taking the time to make it work. Of all the long guns I've ever owned, only one finicky 25-06 sometime back just wouldn't ever cooperate with anything I tried.....no loss I guess. My current 25-06, a Sako 75, made that sole, failed experience much easier to take.....

Thanks for your response......

magnumb:

sounds like you've got this disease real bad! velocity on the 130AB's is about 3250. Not max but enough for me. And I prefer working below max and not stressing things too much. Would not ba at all surpised if RL22 could improve the speed, though. And I understand that TSX's can be pushed a little faster, correct?

I'm curious to hear how the TTSX's work, both accuracy and terminal ballistics! Regards,

After starting out with,among others,a 270 Winchester,I played this game with myself about the extra 100-250 fps advantage offered by cases of slightly greater capacity,like the 270 Weatherby, 7 RM,Weatherby, etc.

What I found is that,the additional velocities afforded by the belted cases(the velocities of which are identical to,or greater than, the WSM's)afforded me about 4" less bullet drop at the 400 yard mark than the 270 Winchester gave,assuming the same bullets in both.Differences in trajectory at 500 yards were about the same, in the 4-6" range, the way I zero.This is from actual drop tests, not ballistic tables.

It takes a very accurate sporting weight rifle to even see these differences in the field,because much of the "drop" can get lost in your group sizes.Many on here (because they are a cut above the "average guy"),will own these rifles. But the over-the-counter shooter/hunter will not.A 270 will day in and day out, "outperform" most of us.

If I used Nosler Partition bullets(which are soft in the front and expand easily) in both, I could see no differences on game.I did notice that, when using very tough expanding bullets that retained most of their weight after going through anything,the additional velocity of the magnum cases expanded these bullets more fully at longer distances.What this translated into in terms of killing effectiveness was pretty hard to quantify.

I have spent a lot of brain power agonizing over whether the additional velocities afforded by the slightly larger small bore magnums (WSM's included),over a 270 Winchester is "worth it",but no longer worry about it at all,just grabbing a 270 Win or magnum case 7mm as the mood strikes me.

The only way I know of to significantly improve on the terminal effectiveness of a 270 Winchester (280,etc)at the distances,and on the game most of us hunt,is to make a QUANTUM leap in bore diameter and bullet weight. Going from 3100 fps to 3300 fps with the same bullet does not do it. Even then, these differences will only be apparent on the heaviest game.

Bob excellent post and I agree 100%, esp with making a quantum leap. A good analogy for me is a 300 Win Mag vs a 300 RUM. With 180 grn bullets, IIRC the RUM has about a 300 fps advantage. Does this allow the RUM to take a different class of animal? I don't think so. It will give flatter trajectory off the bench, maybe extend MPBR, but in field conditions and the average hunter, how much difference does this make? Is there really anything it can do the WM can't? Again, I don't believe so and same thing applies here. But it does give us choices and keeps makers innovative...that's not a bad thing.

to me its about like compairing the 270win and the 7mag. i shoot 139-140 grn bullets in both. the 7mag is a few hundred ft faster,but it destroys alot more meat and doesn't seem to stop game any faster,infact i've had deer go farther with the 7mag then the 270win. the 270win is all the rifle i think i will ever need. i've killed almost 200 whitetails and 10 or more black bear with the 270 in 3 different guns without any problems at all.

I agree with djpaintless that what stands out is the light weight and handy nature of the Kimber Montanas chambered in the WSM's. That rifle weighs less than the 270 Win. factory rifles than I have seen and does not kick bad at all.

However I wish the 0.277" bore had never been. The just a little faster twisted 7mm's are the way to go for me in hunting rifles.

To each their own.

M1: Choices are never a bad thing

Unless,of course they get us more confused!

I see it everywhere I normally buy ammo. Try Graf & Son, Midway USA, Natchezss.com they even have WSM ammo at both rifle ranges I go to.

Well southtexas ( I was born is Austin, BTW!), the terminal effects/results of these TTSX's will unfortunately take some 7 months more to try out......... But I will post the results as I often have over the years I've been here, be it to describe how a new component has worked for me or just to share my hunt.

And yes, either the TTSX's or the TSX's are supposed to be able to take a bit more powder and end up a bit faster than non-grooved, similarly weighted bullets. I have found that to be true with my 300WSM when comparing my current 180TSX load to the former 180gr. NP load. Up to a couple of grains of RL more and several fps more as well. I had read and heard such assertions and also called Barnes to confirm before even starting the TSX load phase, so a bit of homework proved beneficial and I believe is always prudent.

BUT, when trying out a 200gr. TSX load in my 300RUM, which normally shoots 200gr. NP's very well, I found the above not to be the case. As always, when changin' any part of a load recipe, I start at least a few grs. below what I currently am using in that rifle/cartridge combination (all else being equal, including lot #'s). I did so with the 200gr. TSX, using the same jug of RL25 that I've used in my 200gr. NP load.

I loaded up 3 different batches of 4 shot loads safely below the charge weights of my current NP load, then adding a 1/2 gr. to each batch until I had my 3 batches. The first shots felt recoil from my lowest charge weighted batch was much more uncomfortable than my NP load, by a bunch, bolt lift noticeable and primers somewhat extruded.......not so good. Range day over...........

Anyone can make a mistake at the loadin' bench. But I am as careful as anyone when doing such work. I use a scale, deluxe weights to confirm charge weights and reset my scale with each 1/2 gr. gain in my batches for load development. I did so with this new TSX load. I pulled the remaining 3 rounds from that lowest charged batch and they were spot on as to what I had thought I'd loaded. Sooooo, for whatever reason, one which makes no obvious or immediate sense to me nor am I going to lose much sleep over, not the expected nor intended result. Oh well, my original 200gr. NP load has never failed me, but my complete conversion to non-leaded bullets was temporarily put on hold.

I've got a bunch of the 180 TSX's for my 300WSM, enough to try in this same 300RUM at a later date, so all is not lost. Because of their almost 100% weight retention, the 180's are likely a better fit for my needs anyway in that rifle.

As to your question........unfortunately, yes and no, southtexas. Of all the years I've handloaded and especially after finding that the 300WSM TSX's did allow for a bit more powder and velocities over and above their non-grooved counterparts, my experience with the RUM just made Mr. Murphy all that much more real to me.

I think that 3,250 fps usin' your 130gr. AB's is no slouch and as I'm workin' up new loads for most all my long guns, I also have started to embrace your position on, "Not max, but enough for me". Makes sense and is so very true.

Hope this helped, albeit quite loooong......

I think you are spot on Springer,
I have a pair of 300 WSM's and it is the only 30 caliber that I own or even have an interest in.

However, I will probably never be without a 270 Winchester!
That little nudge it puts on your shoulder seems to me an out of proportion recoil to its effectivenes.

Freud thought that men considered cars as an extension of their penises. We tend to like long, sleek sporty models rather than short, fat compacts.

If there's any truth to that, I'm sure that it would apply to cartridges, too - particularly when you observe they way they slide into the breech when you close the bolt (gettin' excited yet?). If that's an important criteria (and don't kid yourself; there are more than a few cartridges that have sold on looks), then you gotta go with the long and leen .270. Considering the fact that no game animal could tell the difference between the two, that's gotta be about as good a way to decide as any.

If thats the case I'll stick with my 270 Roy!

With 65 gr of RL 22 I'm getting more like 3400 fps with 130 TTSXs in my 270 WSM. Looking at all my reloading manuals, I'd say the difference is close to 200 fps. Remember when calculating energy you square the velocity, which is why this translates to 500 ft lbs difference between the two, which is more like a 20% difference in energy. I know energy does not kill by itself, but the formula is the basis for many physics equations, whose results have stood the test of time.
I don't own a .270 but I've got a .280 and a .264, both of which we can probably argue the merits of over a .270 WCF. My WSM is the least picky gun I've ever shot, it simply likes everything, and I've used it a lot these last 5 years. I've killed both elk and deer with all three and I can say I've seen a difference in bullet damage, but it's hard to say if one was more effective than the other. I'd say it's fair to assume that the more meat damage must to some degree indicates greater temporary cavitation, but I don't know if that translates to significantly quicker death, given the same shot placement and same bullet construction.
I bought my 270WSM partly because the ballistics intrigued me, partly because the package it came in intrigued me (cheap M70 Super Shadow, lightweight but accurate) and partly because the .270 WCF does not interest me in any way(ok that's not why I bought that gun, but why I've never owned a .270 or a .30-06).
Obviously choice is good, but I don't think either cartridge is about to die. In the span the .270 WSM has been around (prob 8 years or so), I believe it took Remington much less time to drop the 8mm Rem Mag, and 6.5 Rem Mag and .350 Rem Mag (originally) and Winchester to drop the .264 Win Mag. You see new rifle being chambered for this and the 300 WSM every year. It's here to stay and probably due to the fact that it lives up to the marketing hype.

I have a 280 also and IMO, it's one of the most underrated (or underappreciated) rounds out there. The only thing I have to add, is the velocity you mention based on manual velocities or is this a chrony'd velocity? If strickly going by manual velocities, be careful on that as (and I won't get into the whole story) what I thought I was getting and what I actually was after I bought a chrony years ago was an eye opener. Off the top of my head, I'd say I've seen 150+ difference in what the manual says and what I've actually got in various cartridges.

I make it a point to only use calibers developed before I was born.

Forget that! I'm trading all my guns in for a 338-378 WBY!

You guys can even muddy up the water even further by asking yourself this: What if I had a Ruger No. 1B in 270 Winchester with a 26 inch barrel? How does that compare with a 270 WSM in a 24 inch barrel? That should close the gap a bit. Even if the benefit is only 50 to 75 fps. I can get a 270 Winchester loaded with 130gr Ballistic Tip going 3100 fps in a 26 inch barrel.

I got 150 to 200 fps shooting the same powder and same bullets in EQUAL LENGTH barrels. I compared a Beretta Mato with a 24" barrel to my Kimbers.

You can certainly argue that 150-200 fps isn't enough difference to matter on game but you can't argue that dozen's of rounds were created to gain just such advantage.

As has been said many times before, pick out a rifle you really like in either caliber and you'll do just fine!.........................DJ

I looked at this thread a couple of days ago and I was going to comment but didn't. First of all I have never owned either cartridge, but has shot both on hunting trips where I flew into and borrowed a rifle to hunt.Both did the job for me. I had thought about this issue last spring summer when I was buying and selling some rifles to get nicer ones. For me having a tried and true cartridge where I could get ammo most anywhere was important to me with these selections. I didn't see enough reason to get the wiz bang newest win short mag or Saum or whatever. I sold a 7mm rem mag and a .243 because I didn't like the looks of the plastic stocks. Ended up replacing them with a another .243 and a .308 with nice wood. I already have a 3006 and a .223 with nice wood stocks. Can you see the pattern here? Maybe it's my 54 years of age ..I don't know. I did recently buy a CZ 550 FS 9.3 x 62 because I liked the full stock look and I have heard good things about the caliber. I know getting ammo won't be as easy as going to Academy. But then I have other rifles to use anyway if need be.

Well, it ain't the age.......I'm almost 58!!.....

I guess that I'm still that kid in the candy store. We just need more candy..........

Dan-you'd be able to easily get 3100 out of a 26" barreled .270 (heck I'd be looking for at least 3200 and wouldn't be suprised to see it bump 3300).

Heck my present day Lilja cut to 23" does a bit over that with 54.4 of H4350 (actually it's 3144 fps).

The previous Lilja I had on the gun (also in .270) would run in and around the high 32's to 3300 with 130's and book loads of R22 (lot depending) when the tube was @ 25".

So, IMO going a mere 3100 out of a 26" tube on a 270 would be breathing really easy.

Aside from JB and the 26" tube that he did and Varmint Guy with his Sendero at 26" I don't know of anyone else who's run a long tube .270.

Years back (mid 80's) I was doing a lot of work with a early pre fix #1B in .270. I didn't have a clock back then and so I have zero clue as to what it was running.

Just some things to think about.

Dober

My 26" 1B does 3110 with 59 gr. of the old 4831 and it's easy. Going to try 4831sc and see where we go. I do like my 270wsm but it mainly for the rifle not the additional speed.

Hornady's light mag in 270 shoots 3190-3210 fps out of my 22" 700. It clocks in 3230 in my 24" M70.

Has anyone shot the .270/110 TTSX over a chrony?

There is precious little difference between the two and it would depend on how far away the animal was when hit, but even that won't make any difference within practical ranges..There is just not that much difference in trajectory and killing power between any of our cartridges within reasonalbe guide lines, they are all about the same, the rest is hype that we are supposed to believe...

Proper bullet construction for the velocity is way more important than what caliber we are using, again within practical boundries..

If anyone can tell me the difference in the field between say the 25-06 or 7x57 and a 7 mag or 30-06 as to killing power and trajectory, I'll eat their hat...trajectory is less than 3 inches and in field conditions that means nothing. Any of them with a proper bullet in a proper spot do the same thing..

If you want more then make a big jump to a 338 or .375 but don't expect miracles..I have seen Impala take a 300 gr. 375 or a 210 338 and run a 100 yards many times, same with all calibers.

Too much hype out there, but I guess thats what keeps folks interested...

I have and out of 22-23" tubes 3250 to 3300 is the top end range.

Dober

Dober,
Was that in a .270 WCF? I'm getting more than that out of my 130s in the .270 WSM

You've had far more field experience than I have. Are you saying that you would be just as comfortable facing a large brown bear using a 25-06 using 120gr bullets as you would a 30-06 with 220gr bullets?......................................DJ

When I read Atkinson's comparisons I concluded he was talking about deer, elk, antelope, caribou, sheep, goats and black bear.

Given Ray's propensity for 375's and up when called for,and ample doses of horsepower, I sorta concluded the same thing...

I suspect he's making a case about comparable cartridges for more common game.

I think Ray was making two comparisons. One between the 25-06 and the 7x57 and another between the 30-06 and the 7mm Mag.

You guys are correct in that I was talking deer, elk, Pronghorn, and plainsgame as I don't consider any .277 caliber a dangerous game caliber, I am sorry I didn't make that clear, I just assumed it was a given...

I don't own any 270 so I have no dog in this fight. Seems to the biggest advantage of a 270WSM over the 270 Win is the former can fit into a short action. So really all things being equal a rifle in 270WSM is perhaps a one pound lighter. That's important to some folks...

point of clarification please - is it true that the hornady light mags (in 270 win) push the same bullet as fast as a factory loaded 270wsm? not talking handloads here, just the store-bought stuff.

For info only,problem is, many of them are not lighter....even my pre 64 FW 270 Win with a Brown stock weighs about the same as a 270 WSM Montana; a Rem ti in 270 Win weighs less; and a FW M70 Classic in 270 WSM weighs more than any of them,or about what my 7 mags have weighed for 30 years.

The only rifles I've seen deliver on the lightweight advantage for the WSM is the Kimber Montana,and the Browning ti gun.There may be others,just as there are others in 270 Win that will go even lighter.

IMO distinguishing between these two cartridges based on rifle weight is as tough as distinguishing between them ballistically.

I think that the example of a 115gr bullet in a 25-06 and 220gr bullet out of a 30-06 illustrates that the IS a big difference in both Killing power (on larger game at least) as well as trajectory. Maybe a better way of putting it is that deer and antelope are not really that difficult to kill and so most calibers will kill them just as adequately as more powerful ones......................................DJ

The Remington M700 Ti WSM is 4 ounces lighter than the Win. I think the Kimber Montana's have about the same between them. All have the same barrel lengths.

Sure has been a long winter. Should just posted last years thread on the WSM's or the year before and on!

BobinNH

Why a company could not build a standard rifle chambered in 270WSM a pound lighter than the same model in 270 Winchester is a mystery to me.

You can't build a pound difference between the two because a typical standard action weighs in the mid 40 oz range. And a short action of the same make shaves 3-4 ozs. Then you have the barrel countour problem. Manufacturers like to put magnum countours on WSMs and standard countours and/or shorter barrels on standard .270 WCFs.
My .270 WSM is my second lightest gun, behind my .243 WSSM, but quite a bit lighter than my .264, .280 and others. It's lightness has more to do with the whole package rather than just the action length.

exbiologist

Thank you for your explanation. But if the reduced weight of a short action versus a standard long action is 4 ounces what is the real world advantage of a Winchester Short Magnum over what is already available? Is it "new and improved" marketing exercise?

Maybe this will help. Get the 270 Winchester! Then, ease a 338/06 or Whelen barrel on in place of the pea shooter. If you can't find a 338 or Whelen barrel just put a 30-06 barrel on and shoot Nosler 200 or 220 Partitions. That way, the girlies won't have your rifle when you want to kill a BIG game critter.

Wayne

Peepsight3006

Too late... I own two 30/06 rifles. Plus a M99 300 Savage and a M70 7x57 Mauser. A 22LR pistol is the next gun I want. Probably a Browning Buckmark. If I ever want a larger caliber rifle I might rebarrel my 30/06 Mauser to 9.3x62. Thanks for the input.

Sorry Idaho. I'm glad you have a nice selection of real rifles for big game. Sounds kinda like my own stuff. I also keep a 22-250, a 25-06 and a .270 for various sizes of varmints.

Wayne

peepsight3006

If someone showed me a fresh Mule Deer or Elk carcass and asked me if it was killed by a 270 or a 30/06 round I wouldn't be able to tell from looking. If you can, then your a better rifleman than I am.

Good thing you don't hunt in Texas. People use 22-250's and 223's on Deer down there. Of course a big White Tail Deer runs a hundred pounds. Most are about the size of an adult German Shepherd.

When they first came out,the M70 FW's chambered for the WSM's were supposed to be lighter,but I could not figure out, "lighter than what?",since they weighed more than most of the 270 Winchesters I have owned or built. And about the same as a Weatherby UL chambered for 270 Weatherby...but whatever...

The Kimber gives you a light,nice package; but for me, it was still no lighter than my M70 FW in 270 Winchester. I think the Kimber is about as light as I would want to go in a magnum capacity 270 cartridge.....but a 270 Win CAN be put together even lighter than a Kimber in 270 WSM and still be manageable.

The WSM's still burn a lot of powder,so a somewhat beefier barrel is still required for decent results.

Burn a lot of powder? The last 270 WSM loads I was trying (using RL-17) used the exact same weight of powder as the famous O'Conner loads for the 270 Winchester (and H-4831). Different powders yes but the amounts were the same.

Some makers do indeed not make many changes between the WSM's and long actions. Tikka T-3's for example use the same length action and just put a block in the magazine. With some other makers it's a completely different story. Go handle a Kimber 8400 in a WSM and then an Kimber 8400 LA in 270 Winchester, they are quite different. Same with Sako 85's. If you are tall and have long arms the LA Kimber might fit you better but most people will find the WSM length more to their tastes. I'm not making a claim that one is better than the other just that they are DIFFERENT. See for yourself which suits you better.............................DJ

I've had exactly two 270 Win's and one 270 WSM... I prefer the 1925 version for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it's such a well-mannered, finely balanced round that can be made to feed slickly and is one of those rounds that I find difficult to improve on for its intended purpose.

A 150 Partition at 2,900 is my idea of a do-all, antelope to elk loading...

There isn't much difference in the practical sense between the 270 WSM and the 270 Win. Ballistically, they are a lot close than you think. My 130 grain load was chronographed at 3160 out of a 20" barrel, and 3276 in a 24" barrel. The specs on the 270 WSM are 3275. That's not enough difference to make a difference.

I use a 270 Win for most of my big game hunting, and have never needed more.

Why does having a short action matter? For me a lot of little things add up to a nice advantage. The shorter, slightly lighter actions balance a little better, they feel handier. Ask anyone with a .308 it they feel their guns handle better than standartd length rifle. After 50 years of the .308, I don't think it's just marketing hype. Then there are the slight inherent accuracy advantages: shorter stiffer actions and shorter powder column. You don't see many .270 Winchesters or .30-06s in the benchrest games, but you do see a pile of short action cartridges and a growing number of WSMs.
I also wanted to reiterate the point about whether the 200 fps velocity advantage makes any difference in the field. Velocity matters. Remember, in the energy equation, which wasn't made up by some gunwriter, it's physics, you square the velocity. So it is closer to a 500 ft lb difference, more like a 20% difference. Nobody is saying a .270 Win can't kill a deer or even an elk or that it should die off because it is now obsolete, but at what point can you keep saying there isnt a difference between the two? But how can we tell if the WSM somehow kills any better than the WCF? I'm not sure on that one, but can we all agree that the 264 and 7 Mag are notorious meat damagers? Whats the difference between a .280 and 7 Rem Mag? About the same as the difference between a 270 WCF and 270 WSM. Does meat damage translate to anything resembling killing power? Not exactly, but I think it might demonstrate the additional amount of hydrostatic shock and temporary cavitation. I'd also be willing to bet that you get a little additional penetration with the 200 fps advantage, given sufficient bullet construction. On deer maybe none of this matters, but does it matter on larger game? I'd like to think so.
Velocity matters, accuracy matters, weight and balance matter. Now, why the 7mm WSM hasn't caught on is a real mystery to me.

exbiologist: I agree with about everything you said;good post.I'm a long time user of both the 270 and 7 RM.Undoubtedly,the move to shorter,fatter cartridges and short actions have their benefits.Ditto higher velocity. It's just that,at some point in the velocity equation, I stop worrying about it.

I understand your prejudice. But the real differences have been well documented..................................DJ

Bob, a good friend of mine guided for quite a few years on a couple of the better ranches here in MT. The only animals shot were big bulls. He told me he's never seen much if any difference in killing power of any cartridge from 270 to 300 Wby.

He's always maintained a difference started showing up with 33's, particularly the 340 Wby. Mainly, he's talking about reaction to the shot. Being a guide he liked to see stuff react.

His own personal elk rifle, which has accounted for multiplied dozens of elk, is a 270 Win. He and I once shot a few cow elk together. I used a 300 WSM. He used his 270. I dropped a cow at a bit over 300 yards... never gave an indication of a hit, until it just fell over dead. He dropped two cows with his 270 at the same range... neither gave much indication of a hit, but both toppled over dead. He was using Winchester 130 factory ammo.

Then there's Dobrenski and all the elk he's killed with the standard 270 up to and past 500 yards...

Brad: Yes. A guy named Mike that guided over on Vermejo in NM guided me on some trips in parts of NE New Mexico,and Mike got to see a lot of elk shot with a lot of different stuff.We used to talk elk calibers quite a bit.

Mike used a 300 Weatherby because he said the same thing your friend did; they reacted somewhat more to the 300 than anything smaller,especially at longer distances.So Mike would place the point at which you get these "reactions" a bit lower,but not by much.

Course I have seen elk hit by 270's and 7mm's "react",too.....by falling down

Elk, who me....heck I just hope to see one one of these days...grin

Dober

Mark I'll have to give you a line I got from the local celebrity "outdoorsman" in a small Ohio town a few years ago...he asked if Id ever killed an elk...so I told him....pregnant silence....followed by " that's powerful..."

As for the earlier post Brad did about you killing elk with a .270...You must have not seen the thread that says you cant even kill a mule deer over 250lbs. with a .270

Tell you what...I'll show you an elk, if you show me a bear!
I just hope to see one of them one day...
Ingwe

I smoked a 5x6 bull elk with my 300 WM and a Federal 200 gr. Sierra GameKing at about 60 yds right through the boiler room a few years back.

Didn't move or even so much as blink.

About 10 seconds later he flopped over.

Exactly the same thing happened to me in northern BC with a bull moose, using a 30.06 and 150 gr. softpoints, with two shots at about 50 yds, one through the lungs and another in the neck.

I have seen the same! A friend of ours, and my father both got moose permits in the same reagion a couple years back- he brought his .300 weatherby, and dad had his .270 win.

I saw, the friend of ours shoot his bull (650 LBS)- and it didnt even act like it had been hit...he put a quick second shot in the neck, and the bull waddled off finally tipping over about 40 yards in the field we where in.

Dad's bull- two days later at the same farm was facing us, and dad shot it once with a 150 grain Nosler Partition in the chest, and the back legs collapsed before the front.

Elk can be hard animals to impress sometimes.