Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles .270 or 270WSM. ?

I have a chance to pick up an “In the box” unfired 270WSM, or a used .270 Winchester for the same price. They are very reasonably priced from a friend that has no use for either, he loves his .25/06. The wsm was a raffle gun, and the .270 Win. was willed to him.

I have used a regular .270 for over 50 years, but no longer have one.
The guns offered are a Savage 11 short action, or a 111 long action.

Guys that have a WSM.....how do you like them, and how’s the accuracy with 130 gr. Sierras? I have many boxes of the Sierras.

I’m not worried about the price of a set of dies, if I go with the WSM.

I have both. Shoot 130g Interlocs is the 270 for deer which chrono at 3100 in a 22” barrel. Results are dead reliable....it kills quickly and easily reaches out to 300yds+. I shoot 140 accubonds at 3200fps in the WSM. It is a hammer with these bullets on deer. I’ve found the WSM shoots closer to advertised velocity than the 270 with factory ammo. The other thing I appreciate about the WSM is it shoots fast and flat but recoil is modest enough to always be able to watch the impact even with light rifles. Can’t say that about my other long range hunting rifles (7mm STW, 300Wby, 340Wby).

I've had both, I prefer the circa 1925 270.

Have two 270 Winchester’s and one WSM. Love the WSM with 140’s and 150’s. RL26 is a crusher with the WSM AND Win. If you like one it’s hard to not like the other.

Same here, but I'm a factory shooting simpleton.

I have the plain old .270 Win in a Parker Hale1200, and M70 EW. Both rifles are scary accurate, but to answer one of your questions a Sierra PH 130 grain a full case of I4831 took my largest bodied mule deer at 560 yards. I've never felt the need to try the .270 WSM but have heard good things, but I wouldn't use the Sierra 130 grains in it I'd look for a little tougher bullet.

I own a .270 WSM, a Wby Vanguard action with Mcmillan Edge stock, Timney trigger, and 24" PacNor barrel. I regard it as a .270 Weatherby without the 26" tube. With my handloads of RL22 and 130 gr. Nosler E-Tips, I can easily get 3350 fps. out of the 24" barrel, although the best accuracy occurs at MV of 3300 fps. Accuracy is superb, and this Vanguard is one of the slickest actions I have ever used. With a Leupold VX3 3.5-10X scope, it goes 7 lb. 15 oz., a very nice rifle weight for carrying and also for steady shooting.

If you really need the extra fps get the WSM, if not get the standard 270. Ammo will be cheaper and you can find it anywhere. Living in WNY which I assume is Western New York, I would get the standard 270 because you're likely hunting in wooded areas and smaller fields.

I have two of the generic .270's. Even as much as I tinker, never had interest in a .270 WSM or WBY. Except for a custom Hill Country .270 WBY listed on GB sitting in a Pacific Research Rimrock stock. If the WSM flips your switch, and you hand load, go for it...

If you are going to handload l would definitely choose the WSM. With that cartridge you can always back off if you want to settle for 270 Win performance or load for full power WSM performance. Like some of the other posters my 700 shoots 130 BTs and 140 ABs into very tiny holes at full power with great brass life (10+).

Ive not used Sierras (factory only) but I’ve been impressed with 150 Fusions in the WSM. I just switched this season to 140 Accubonds. Both shoot very well through a New Haven featherweight stainless.

I see a 270 WSM as stretching 270 Win performance another 100 or so yards. Since 400 is my limit and twice as far as I need, I stayed Win...

Had both, still have the old version. The WSM was fine, but in reality, it wasn't needed for anything I do out to 400. I'm a stalker not a dialer.

I have both and like them both.

Both good cartridges, I am looking at a Kimber 270 as I type this.

I am a big 270 WCF guy. Friends have the wsm and believe it has great advantages over my WCF's.
I am sending 150 partitions at 3000 fps ++ and this out of a 22" barrel. I won't carry a rifle with a longer barrel, this kind of eliminates the wsm. Cost of brass and usability also favors the WCF. At this point I see no need for the short/fat..270

270 Winchester will do anything you want and as mentioned the ammunition is available anywhere you go. I have both. I like shooting the 270wsm most. I hand load the 110 grain Barnes and have never had an east Texas whitetail run more than 25 yards.

I have a 270 WSM is a Weatherby Vanguard Sub MOA. Love the rifle and cartridge for long range shooting. Most of my shots are out to 250 yds. Occasionally beyond that.


I use 140 grain Hornady SST's with RL 25 and get 3175 fps. Very accurate.
So I vote for the WSM but certainly the 270 Win is still a fine cartridge that will work very well as it has since the 1920's


Dan

I have had both. In fact the longest shot I ever made on an elk was with the 270 short mag.
However, I can't say I could see any difference at all in how the 2 cartridges preformed on game. On the scale of 1 to 10 both, make a 10.
But because my short mag used more expensive brass and used more powder I sold it .

I still own 3 standard 270s.

We are always told faster means "improved performance". It's not true. Faster only makes it faster. No easier to hit with, no deadlier and not more accurate. Drop and windage between the 270 WSM and the 270 Win are so close as to be insignificant in the field. The range you need to start holding over is not that much different and once you have to hold high, you have to HOLD high so if you can hold, one bullet that is 5" flatter then the other is not important at all. I just hold the 5" more.

I have been using 270s since 1968. I have used many many many other rounds in the years from then to now. Some have impressed me and others are just "another round". Most of those "other rounds" have now been sold or traded off. Nothing wrong with them, but nothing that wasn't done as well (or better) by some other cartridge I had already.

I still own some 270s however.

Can't imagine anything that I'll ever shoot that a 150gr NP at 3000 wouldn't handle. Combine that with my general preference for older rifles, and the WCF is the obvious choice for me. Also can't see any advantage to pushing Sierras faster than the WCF will. If the rifles are generally comparable in condition and grade, I'd take the standard, though I'm not a Savage guy so wouldn't really be interested in either unless the price was very good.