.270 Win vs. .270 WSM

H

hopeisnotastrategy

New member
I thought I had settled on .270 as the caliber for my first rifle. I will be hunting throughout the lower 48 with Whitetail, Mule Deer, Black Bear, and Elk as my primary quarry.

Some buddies of mine have encouraged me to get the .270 WSM instead.

My concern is that I am going to spend a lot of time practicing at the range and want the weapon to be fun to shoot. I don't want excessive recoil and expense if it doesn't gain me a lot.

All that to ask this: Do I gain enough for my purposes to warrant the extra recoil and cost of ammo to justify the Short Mag?
 
The biggest advantage of the WSMs is getting the same or a bit more power out of the same caliber in a short action. That makes the overall length at least an inch shorter.
 
FOR your use IMHO the 270Win would be good,easy to get ammo,low recoil,flat shooting,good power,& would take all the game you have listed:D
 
I've never gotten into the short mag craze. I'd get the standard .270 winchester myself. like doyle said, the main reason for the WSM is the same round made shorter. but that also makes it fatter so a rifle that might hold 5 now drops down to 4 or even 3. not a big deal to most but something to consider. probably won't ever be able to cycle through 5 shots fast enough anyway.
 
As long as you are planning on keeping shots under 300, 400 yards the .270 will be fine. All these WSMs and RUMs are fine and dandy.. but expensive and usually not needed. Have you ever looked for used rifles? I see more used modern day hunting rifles in 7mm Rem Mag than any other caliber.. I guess people think they need the latest and greatest, but are unpleasantly surprised with how much recoil they have and how expensive they are to feed.

Not knocking the .270 WSM, though. I'm very interested in getting one too. From what I've read, the recoil is fairly similar to the .30-06 but with better ballistics across the board. With finances being tight, its just not a high enough priority right now.
 
I'd take the 270 Win. Nothing more is needed, and it's cheaper to shoot.

The resale may not be as good with WSM. Been one for sale in the paper for a long time.
 
The WSM's are spendy now, and in 5 years, the brass will be made of unobtainium. Anybody know how to form these?

.270 WIN is as common as corn. If you can't find that in 5 stores within 15 miles of you, either there are not 5 stores there or you are in some hell hole like Chicago, NYC or Jersey.......
 
next time you go to a gun show walk in the door and throw a dead cat and see if you can't hit 5 savage 110s in .270win for under $300. I just bought one for my step-mom for $270 with scope last year. I'm planning on finding an old savage 110 long action and building a custom .30-06 on it. not hard or expensive, anyone could do it.
 
I am a huge fan of the short mags but IMHO you'd be better off with the 270 Winchester if you make sure to use good hunting bullets for elk and large blackies: Partitions, A Frames, or Barnes. SAUM and WSM are pricey to say the least and can be hard to find in smaller stores.
 
not a fan

The whole "alphabet soup" of new cartridges that have hit the market in recent years leave me cold. WSM, RUM, WSSM, and what all else??

+1 on comments on ammo and case availability.

By a standard .270 and enjoy a classic.
 
The .270 Win is a fantastic cartridge...venerable or not!!! Handloading is a great idea, since it brings out the best it has to offer, but there's some great factory ammo being offered today as well.

The Sierra 90 grain bullet is really great for midrange target shooting, and my load shoots very close to the hotter 130 grain deer rounds at 100 yards.
 
It should be pointed out that the original 30 cal “short mags" were conceived to give higher performance in Military length Semi-Autos. In other words, it was a way to get higher velocity from a 308 length box magazine. The other bore sizes were adaptations of the 30 cal.
The concept works very well for that purpose.

But in bolt actions, short mags are a perfect answer to a non-existent problem.

If you want to get a hunting rifle in a 270 WSM and you want to use an auto, the Short mage is not a bad idea. Browning and Winchester have both made them, as has Benelli.
But if you are going to buy a traditional bolt action, I would advise to stick with the old standard 270 Winchester. It lacks nothing.

I have choreographed the 270 Winchester with a 26 inch barrels against the 270 Weatherby in the same length barrel and run both at the same chamber pressures. I was shocked to find that I was never able to get a full 100 FPS more speed from the Weatherby over the Winchester unless I loaded to higher pressures in one shell over the other. In fact, using heavy loads of powder with 130 grain bullets, there were 4 loads I tested in which the 270 Winchester was within 25 FPS of the Weatherby, and one load where the Winchester beat the Weatherby by 3 FPS

I would have to guess the 270 short mag is going to give similar results. It can give high velocity and shorten the pressure curve a bit over the 270 Winchester (hence it’s suitability for autos)
It may “beat” the standard 270, but not enough to make me spend extra money on the brass.

My opening is this;
Bolt action-----270 Winchester.
Auto….maybe 270 Short Mag……(maybe!)
 
The .270 Win has been around since, what, 1925? A cartridge that age and PROVEN[re: 30-06!] is getting my field time, and does. Nothing wrong with theWSM's, just really do not see a need for a marketing idea that is no better than the original. Look what happened to the 7mmWSM. Poof. Gone.
 
I'd recommend the 270 Win because ammo is cheaper and rifle selection is better.

However let's clear up some misunderstandings about the WSMs.

They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.

Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The 270 and 300 WSMs are popular rounds and are going to be around for a long time. The 7mm WSM failed because it was too similar to the 270 WSM, not because of any inherent flaw in the WSM concept. The various Remington rounds are failing because they are "me too" wannabes with no advantage over their WSM counterparts, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept.
 
you have a chance to buy a 270wsm in a rifle that is as fast and flat shooting as my old 270 wby mag for half the price, 20% lighter weight, shorter action, and you don't know what to buy? and you may hunt elk? and you may shoot a long way? are you a aggie? i have to retire old betsy and re-spend again to get one of those. my bud has a winchester in wsm that shoots .5in. The short mag design should have been out 2 years after the 22-250 went public. i couldnt wait 30 years to get the perfect hunting rifle.
 
They do give a real ballistic advantage over their 30-06 based counterparts. It may not be important to you, it may not be worth the money to you, but it does exist.

Short action rifles are lighter and handle better than long action rifles. It's a real advantage for **some** types of hunting, not so much for others. If you appreciate the short action concept, the WSMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a ballistic advantage of about 200 +/- fps with factory loads with the same bullets. Which only equates to around a 7" advantage in trajectory at 500 yards, and 2" of wind drift at the same range and 25 more yards of point blank range. It delivers 300 ft lbs more energy as well at that range (roughly 350 vs. 325 yards). All of this can be pretty easly compensated for except for the energy factor, all you need is a good range finder and a quality scope with repeatable adjustments.

As far as the handling qualities go, those are really hard to quantify. How much better handling is it 10-20% or more? I run short and long actions as well, but can't really see the difference in handling a 1/2" shorter action makes. Shorter barrels yes, my 20" or less barreled rifles handle much quicker than a 22" plus barrels.

I like the .270 and .300 WSM's and have played around with them a little. That said since this OP's first rifle and one that he'll be using with his son, I wouldn't step into the WSM right from the start. The advantages of the short mag will not be realized by the novice shooter/hunter right away.
 
Used WSMs of all calibers seem to be a dime a dozen in all the gun stores around here. I think hunters get sticker-shock from the ammo prices real fast. Buy whatever you want, but research ammo cost and see if you can afford to practice with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top