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

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.