Geo_Erudite
New member
I would ask myself "what would Jack O'Conner do", and then do the opposite.
270 Win VS 270 WSM
- Thread starter kraigwy
- Start date
Pathfinder45
New member
He mentioned using a 125 grain Barnes bullet, if I recall correctly. So are you saying we should all switch to 250 grainers out of perhaps a 35 Whelan? I think we getting off track here....
Pathfinder45
New member
Well, I just tried to create a poll where everyone could choose just one of the four 270's available. But I guess I can't do that from my tablet. In any case, I would clearly choose the original 270 Winchester over all the others.
If we are talking 300 WSM, 30'06 vs 300 Win Mag, make mine a 300 WSM.
In 270, the WSM is approaching barrel burning velocities, the tends to blow up bullets(cause most are made for 270 win velocities), and holds like 2 less rounds in the mag.....not to mention, the slight recoil increase. Frankly, I think recoil is being overstated.
This ignores other reloading issues like shorter case life and weird throat variations maker to maker.
Make mine a 270 win or 280 Ackley in a sporterized 1917 so I have 6+1 capacity!
....and 270 at 1500 yes is academic. The bullets are not really meant to shoot like that.
In 270, the WSM is approaching barrel burning velocities, the tends to blow up bullets(cause most are made for 270 win velocities), and holds like 2 less rounds in the mag.....not to mention, the slight recoil increase. Frankly, I think recoil is being overstated.
This ignores other reloading issues like shorter case life and weird throat variations maker to maker.
Make mine a 270 win or 280 Ackley in a sporterized 1917 so I have 6+1 capacity!
....and 270 at 1500 yes is academic. The bullets are not really meant to shoot like that.
When I shot for the AK NG I built a Model 70 1000 yard rifle in 300 WM. Its a super accurate gun.
The 1000 yard matches we shot were actually 4 matches. Any rifle/any sight, Any Rifle/Iron Sights, Service Rifle, and Team Match.
So that was 4 matches per day. My Model 70 was quite heavy, but still it was tiring. In looking at my old score books, my best scores were in the Service Rifle Match using in Super Match M1A.
Since I put a brake on the Model 70 and it is easier to shoot, but fatigue will still get you.
That's why long range shooters are moving toward the 6/6.5 rifles. Even then they put brakes or suppressors on them.
I don't care how big and tough you are, recoil does get you after a while.
Plus, I'm a wimp, for hunting I like the M-70 Featherweight. You spend a lot more time carrying the rifle then shooting it while hunting.
The 1000 yard matches we shot were actually 4 matches. Any rifle/any sight, Any Rifle/Iron Sights, Service Rifle, and Team Match.
So that was 4 matches per day. My Model 70 was quite heavy, but still it was tiring. In looking at my old score books, my best scores were in the Service Rifle Match using in Super Match M1A.
Since I put a brake on the Model 70 and it is easier to shoot, but fatigue will still get you.
That's why long range shooters are moving toward the 6/6.5 rifles. Even then they put brakes or suppressors on them.
I don't care how big and tough you are, recoil does get you after a while.
Plus, I'm a wimp, for hunting I like the M-70 Featherweight. You spend a lot more time carrying the rifle then shooting it while hunting.
Yes, and .. NO.
MAYBE
Studies look at how many rifles?? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands??
And, they don't look at YOUR rifle, or MINE. You may consider the shorter, fatter round has greater accuracy potential, but the cartridge is only ONE factor in accuracy.
The blanket statement that the WSM is going to be more accurate is a blind prediction, implying the WSM will always be more accurate, and that is an easy one to debunk. To bust that blanket statement, all you need do is find a single .270Win that will outshoot a single .270 WSM, somewhere in the country. We see this often with the .308 and .30-06. Studies (statistics) "prove" the shorter round is "more accurate", BUT the reality is, any given .308 might outshoot any given .30-06, and any given .30-06 might outshoot any given .308.
Without taking into account the rifles, and all the other variables, statements such as "cartridge A is more accurate than B" is essentially meaningless.
As an example, a 14lb bench gun in .270Win (admittedly not a common, or popular choice, but absolutely possible) would likely outshoot (smaller group) a light weight carbine sporter in .270WSM. Myth = Busted.
Only in absolute terms of how far the bullet will go in total, when fired with the rifle at the optimum angle for distance.
"More Range" is marketing hype, playing to the large group of people who do not truly understand long range shooting.
The range of every cartridge is over a mile. Even .22rimfires. Useable or practical range is another matter, and one dependent entirely on the skill of the shooter. At the end of the 19th century, people were shooting 1,000 yard target matches with the .45-70 (and its contemporaries). Yes, they were the some of the best shooters in the country, using specialized rifles and sights, but the winners were turning in approx. 1 MOA groups at that range.
And doing it with the "short range, rainbow trajectory" big bore blackpowder cartridges.
Where the magnums shine (assuming you think they do) is in the game fields WHEN the shooter mis-estimates the range.
4runnerman
New member
44AMP- What you say is true, but now you are not comparing apples to apples. In your senerio you are putting a Ruger 10/22 up against a Anschultz. That is not a fair comparision by far. I am stating 2 evenly made rifles, one in a 270 and one in a 270WSM, The 270WSM will always out shoot the 270. This as I said is why comp shooters have switched to short fat cases.
Identical rifles of same quality put to the test ( any Caliber) the SM version is going to shoot more accurate , at worst-As accurate. Now I will admitt, my only expirence is Comp shooting. But in my 4 years of it now I have never seen a 30-06 in any form on the line, Then again I have never seen a 270 or a 270WSM either. Yes they can be very accurate, yes they are great rifles, but in reality-They are not as consitantly accurate as the 308. They do make a much better hunting set up then the 308 to a point. On the flip side-There exceptions to every rule. Would not be the first or the last time I put my foot in my mouth
Identical rifles of same quality put to the test ( any Caliber) the SM version is going to shoot more accurate , at worst-As accurate. Now I will admitt, my only expirence is Comp shooting. But in my 4 years of it now I have never seen a 30-06 in any form on the line, Then again I have never seen a 270 or a 270WSM either. Yes they can be very accurate, yes they are great rifles, but in reality-They are not as consitantly accurate as the 308. They do make a much better hunting set up then the 308 to a point. On the flip side-There exceptions to every rule. Would not be the first or the last time I put my foot in my mouth
Last edited:
Pathfinder45
New member
I'm with 44 AMP this one. If 4runnerman had said, "usually", or perhaps, "likely, more often than not, or generally"; then I might believe it. But, "always", well, I don't think I can buy that.
However, the 270's are essentially hunting calibers, not target, and except for the 6.8 SPC, definitely not military. So even if the 270 WSM we're proven to be minutely more accurate on the 1,000 yard target range where the score matters; that gives nothing to the hunter.
However, the 270's are essentially hunting calibers, not target, and except for the 6.8 SPC, definitely not military. So even if the 270 WSM we're proven to be minutely more accurate on the 1,000 yard target range where the score matters; that gives nothing to the hunter.
4runnerman
New member
Pathfinder- If I would have said any of the words you mention, Then I would not be giving you facts would I ?. Google my point- Every article you will read states just what I am saying is true. Test after test after test. Why is it so hard to believe?. More even powder burn, Better powder burn, More consistant powder burn, faster powder burn- This all adds up to a more accurate round. Reloading Basics 101 really. I am not saying the others are not accurate, but tests have shown them not to be as accurate. Again coming from comp shooting ( which is the search for the most accurate round) You do not see 30-06, 270's and such on the line, While the 308 fails in ballistics to them,Flat out it is a more accurate round to shoot. Shorter case again. The 6.5, 6MM, 6BRX, 30BRX, need I keep going. The short,Fat wildcat cartridges are king in long range shooting.
These are the rounds setting the world records, not 30-06 and 270's. Ask yourself-Why?. Because they are more accurate consistently.
This is getting off track here, so lets get back to the OP''s question.
These are the rounds setting the world records, not 30-06 and 270's. Ask yourself-Why?. Because they are more accurate consistently.
This is getting off track here, so lets get back to the OP''s question.
Last edited:
270wSM
I have got a new Browning A-II in 270wsm. I have 2, 270 wins. A m-70 and
a Ruger 77. I decided there is not enough difference in them to bother with
another set of dies, It is a beautiful rifle but I'm going to trade it off. My old
pre 64 m-70 & Ruger 77 will do me just fine.
I have got a new Browning A-II in 270wsm. I have 2, 270 wins. A m-70 and
a Ruger 77. I decided there is not enough difference in them to bother with
another set of dies, It is a beautiful rifle but I'm going to trade it off. My old
pre 64 m-70 & Ruger 77 will do me just fine.
ok, now, with additional qualifiers its a better statement.
I could have chosen a rifle with a shot out barrel, vs. a new one. Your initial statement didn't set any limits. Fair? of course not. But I don't have to be fair with an unlimited statement.
I'm not disagreeing that the shorter powder column does better. Only that what makes a match winning difference in competition could be virtually irrelevant in sporting rifles.
And I think choosing a sporting rifle caliber only for the short fat powder column is not looking at other important factors.
RaySendero
New member
Pf45,
I already have chosen! Matter of fact I have 2 rifles in 270 Winchester.
I'll be very surprised if he can put together a 270WSM that can best this one for precise grouping:
Pathfinder45
New member
I think we are still on topic here:
OK, a lot of 270 Winchesters are phenomenally accurate. But what if most 270 WSM's are measurably more accurate than all the 270 Winchesters that have ever been made? For a moment now, let's just say it's true for the sake of our man coming from the range...... Perhaps his rifle will shoot one-eighth MOA off the bench at 400 yards.....
I don't know about y'all out there, but I never, ever shot a deer off a bench rest. Nor prone, for that matter. It's always been standing or kneeling for me. So, to answer the original question, "is there really an advantage of the WSM over the 270 Win": For a hunting rifle, absolutely not. At the range, shooting for score and betting money on the outcome? Well then, maybe so. But I doubt there will be many 270's of any flavor in that game. It's a hunting rifle, right? Perhaps a phenomenally accurate one, but still........ Any accuracy advantage of the WSM from the standpoint of range competition is utterly irrelevant out in the field. Get off the bench, forget about prone, stand up like a man and shoot. At this point, it can be embarrassingly evident that your scoped bolt-action wonder rifle gives scant advantage over some guy with a 30-30 lever-gun that knows how to use it as he clears gallon milk jugs at 150 yards quicker than you.......Kneeling is a quickly assumed position that can add quite a bit of stability in a hurry for a longer shot. Remember that game animals aren't waiting for your convenience. I'm not picking on anyone in particular......I'm sure y'all must be great off-hand shots...... But I know my main shooting buddy is addicted to that infernal bench!
But perhaps someone here can point out convincingly how the 270 WSM gains a real advantage for the Deer & Elk Hunter that actually left his truck at the end of the road? I know your WSM will do as good a job in spite of less magazine capacity. But what will it do out there that the 270 Winchester can't do just as well? I think nothing.
What say ye? Anybody?
OK, a lot of 270 Winchesters are phenomenally accurate. But what if most 270 WSM's are measurably more accurate than all the 270 Winchesters that have ever been made? For a moment now, let's just say it's true for the sake of our man coming from the range...... Perhaps his rifle will shoot one-eighth MOA off the bench at 400 yards.....
I don't know about y'all out there, but I never, ever shot a deer off a bench rest. Nor prone, for that matter. It's always been standing or kneeling for me. So, to answer the original question, "is there really an advantage of the WSM over the 270 Win": For a hunting rifle, absolutely not. At the range, shooting for score and betting money on the outcome? Well then, maybe so. But I doubt there will be many 270's of any flavor in that game. It's a hunting rifle, right? Perhaps a phenomenally accurate one, but still........ Any accuracy advantage of the WSM from the standpoint of range competition is utterly irrelevant out in the field. Get off the bench, forget about prone, stand up like a man and shoot. At this point, it can be embarrassingly evident that your scoped bolt-action wonder rifle gives scant advantage over some guy with a 30-30 lever-gun that knows how to use it as he clears gallon milk jugs at 150 yards quicker than you.......Kneeling is a quickly assumed position that can add quite a bit of stability in a hurry for a longer shot. Remember that game animals aren't waiting for your convenience. I'm not picking on anyone in particular......I'm sure y'all must be great off-hand shots...... But I know my main shooting buddy is addicted to that infernal bench!
But perhaps someone here can point out convincingly how the 270 WSM gains a real advantage for the Deer & Elk Hunter that actually left his truck at the end of the road? I know your WSM will do as good a job in spite of less magazine capacity. But what will it do out there that the 270 Winchester can't do just as well? I think nothing.
What say ye? Anybody?
4runnerman
New member
Pathfinder- Now I am with you on that. I am coming from the accracy point only as I have stated. Myself- I see no need for a Magnum caliber for anything in North America. I think it is a Macho thing myself. As for shooting deer- I don't hunt any more as age and my back stop me. But in the 30 plus years I did hunt I could not count the times I could have set up a bench and shot my deer from it.
From a bench, resting on a tree branch, on shooting sticks. I never had to shoot a moving deer, never a running deer. They all came out,stopped, starred around at things and dropped when I shot them. Not that it matters but most all my deer were shot with a 243 at 150 yards or less.
From a bench, resting on a tree branch, on shooting sticks. I never had to shoot a moving deer, never a running deer. They all came out,stopped, starred around at things and dropped when I shot them. Not that it matters but most all my deer were shot with a 243 at 150 yards or less.
Pathfinder45
New member
Hello Ray; how many shots are under that dime, and what was the distance?
RaySendero
New member
3 shots - 200 yds
kraigwy asked, "Do we really need magnums"? I don't think so, and I'll go as far as to say we don't need most of the factory offerings that are currently on the market either. I don't think any of us would give up hunting or shooting if all we had were our trusty old 30-06's, at least I know I would not. I do however like new cartridges, it gives me a reason to get a new rifle and reloading equipment, and to try as hard as I can to make that rifle shoot better than any in it's class that I own. A couple weeks ago I picked up a Savage 116 in 6.5x284 because I wanted a backup hunting rifle, like I did not either have one already or have access to many from family and friends. Yet the 6.5x284 intrigues me and I just could not resist
Yes they were, BUT it's one thing to shoot a rainbow trajectory cartridge at a known distance and quite another to shoot one at a long unknown distance. The flatter the trajectory the less critical a tiny error in range estimation becomes.
That said, the 270 Win is pretty flat shooting as it is and any advantage the 270 WSM may have in trajectory is only going to be evident at distances that are too darn far to be shooting at game.
Absolutely. And that was my point. One can hit anything one can see, at any distance, BUT you have to be precisely accurate on the range, and wind correction. Very very few humans are that good when the range gets long. I know I'm not.
I can't tell you by eye if that deer is 435 or 475yds away, enough of a difference to miss a clean kill with many cartridges, and that's not including wind. Not a shot I would take on a deer. A varmint would be a different matter.
Flatter shooting rounds mean if you make a small enough error, the shot can still land in the kill zone. It does not mean you will automatically make a good hit at long range. Velocity doesn't do that. A shorter, fatter powder column doesn't do that. The only thing that can do that, is you. IF you are good enough. And, if you are good enough with rifle and round A, the learning curve with rifle & round B should be short.
If you aren't that good with A, choosing B won't make you any better. Only you can do that. (practice)