I'm considering getting a .270 WSM in either the Kimber Montana or the Classic.
Can anyone tell me if there's any noticable difference in the recoil between the .270 Win and the .270 WSM in these rigs?
How about muzzle blast. Any difference there?
My biggest reason for considering the .270 WSM is the shorter action, overall length, and slightly lighter than the .270 Win.
I have a 84M in .260 that I absolutely love, but my wife has claimed it now! (Plus it's a good excuse for another rifle!)
Thanks in advance...
Check out the Chuck Hawks recoil table. It will give you a good idea anyway. I hear a 270WSM recoils about like a standard weight 30.06. Not bad but a little stouter than a .270.
I have shot a lot of both and now with the onset of neck trouble am very concerned with recoil. The recoil numbers you calculate on the various web sites I think are pretty good (based on rifle weight, bullet weight and powder capacity, etc) and in my experience once you get the calibration of the numbers to your desired recoil limit they are a good indicator. My 270WSM is 2# lighter than my 270 Win (5.75 vs 7.75#) and as the numbers indicated I no longer want to shoot that rifle, even with a sand filled sissy bag. I have a really heavy 30-06 Mauser and the numbers said even with the 180 gr it would be close to the fairly light 25-06 with 120 gr that I can tolerate and indeed it's not bad.
Don't know so much about muzzle blast as in my experience anything with a reasonable barrel length 21" or more it is not an issue, but again I have limited experience there.
If the barrel lengths are fairly close the mzl reports will be similar albeit a bit more with the WSM.
As for recoil, neither will bother most people but you will notice that that the WSM is a bit stouter and a bit quicker.
I'd be for not sweating it, what kinds of critters and ranges will you be using it at?
Thx
Dober
I have both calibers in Model 70's. My 15 year old shoots the 270 wsm. He is a tall skinny kid and shoots it real well.
The 270 wsm is like Dober says. Just a bit quicker with a bit more bark.
You can't go wrong with a .270 Win.
If you want to step-up in power get a .270 Weatherby Mag.
I've shot all three and I prefer the .270 Win and the .270 Wby.
But to answer your question the .270 WSM w/130's recoil about like my .30-06 w/180's. Not bad at all.
I have a pre-64 Mod. 70 in an H-S Precision stock. The thing weighs about 9 1/4 lbs., as I recall. I've had numerous other .270 Wins over the years as well. In addition to my .270 Win., I also have a Kimber .270 WSM. Yeah, I'm a 27 cal. slut. Anyway, I always use 150 gr. bullets in both rifles and can say that the recoil in the WSM is a bit more stout than the standard .270. The thing to remember though is that in my case, the .270 Win. is several pounds heavier and I use around 11-12 grs. more powder in the WSM.
To me, neither is intolerable & I can easily go thru a box at the range in a day. In the field, you won't feel the increased recoil of the WSM. Just my thoughts.
Bear in Fairbanks
i have 2 friends who love their WSMs... they seem to kick a little more shareply than a .270 win. in the same style rifle...
still shootable, in my book.....
I've felt that my WSM's recoil is more of a long "push" than a sharp "punch" in comparison to my 280. I think the difference has more to do with the recoil pad than with velocity and/or bullet weight. If you are recoil shy, just have a 1" decelerator installed and you probably won't notice that you're shooting a magnum cartridge.
I shoot both the .270 and .270wsm. In stalled a Limbsaver pre-fit recoil pad on my Tikka T3 Lite .270WSM. Can't tell the between it and my Remongton Mountain rifle in .270.
With a rifle as lite as a Kimber you will know it's going off, especially if using 150gr bullets.
In my Featherweight with Mcmillan stock you get a noticeable increase in felt recoil going to 150's. It has a very narrow recoil pad/butt area. With 130's I don't notice it being much different.
If you are close to Carrollton PM me and you can come shoot mine sometime.
Mike