270 Win VS 270 WSM

44 AMP said:
Maybe not.

A friend of mine loved his Weatherby .270 Magnum. Until he got a chronograph, and found out his magnum was only giving him about 20-50fps more than his standard .270 Win.

This was because of the individual rifles he was shooting. His .270 Win was a "fast" gun, with everything it shot, and his Weatherby was a "slow" one.

Typically the difference is not that much, but extreme cases can, and do happen, and you really won't know until you chrono the gun and loads in your hands.

Magnums burn more powder, and whether they are long and fat, or short and fatter, only you can decide if the gain is worth the cost.
Click to expand...

I've seen many chronos of .270 Weatherbys that show they indeed hit the advertised velocities, although a 26-inch barrel is needed for the best performance.

I've lusted after a MKV .270 Wby for quite some time now, but simply can't justify it when you can get something very fine and even slightly exotic such as a CZ 550 in .270 for about 1/2 as much....
 
I think it was in the late 80's, but a gun writer had a bench rifle made in 270 Win and a high dollar sporter in 270 Win. Layne Simpson used a Jarrett built rail gun with a Hart barrel and that rifle shot sub MOA groups, an accuracy level which was not generally considered for the 270 Win.

While short and fat cartridges may be theoretically "more accurate", I challenge anyone to show a difference between the 270 Win and the 270 WSM in a hand held rifle, or in a rifle balanced over a back pack, rock, or against a tree. Since the human alignment, aiming, trigger pull error is in terms of yards, if not tens of yards, for many shooters, the small differences in inherent accuracy between these cartridges will never be realized in the field.
 
Given the bullet selection, .270 is a hunting caliber not a long range caliber. So it doesn't really matter where it goes subsonic. It matters where it falls through 1500 ft-lbs of energy.

At my elevation, that would be 450y for the .270 and 600y for the magnum. So inside 450y, there is NO advantage to the magnum - just a more sore shoulder. And shots beyond 450y are fairly problematic - at that range, with the magnum, each MPH of wind is a 1" deflection. Even with a rangefinder, good DOPE, and dialing your drop that's on the border of being an unethical shot in my opinion. Lots of risk of losing a wounded animal.

So on the whole I'd say .270 WSM has no practical advantage over .270.
 
The Big D said:
Given the bullet selection, .270 is a hunting caliber not a long range caliber. So it doesn't really matter where it goes subsonic. It matters where it falls through 1500 ft-lbs of energy
Click to expand...

There are plenty of .277 caliber bullets out there that make it a viable long range round. Nosler, CEB, and Matrix just to name a few that produce bullets with G1 BC starting in the .500 range up to .650. That's better BC than many long range bullets in other more traditional long.range cartridges.

As far as 1500 ft-lbs of energy is concerned that's just an arbitrary number someone pulled out of a hat. How many hunters take all manner of big game with muddle loaders, shotguns, and pistols and most of these firearms only rarely1500 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Energy looks good on paper, but it means very little afield when it comes to killing prowess of a cartridge.
 
1500 ft-lbs of energy is a VERY good rule of thumb for big game. Ignore it if you want - lots of people ignore lots of things they should pay attention to.

As to long range use, .277 diameter bullets are consistently worse than .284 bullets of similar sectional density. There's a very good reason no one chooses .270s for long range.
 
I ignore 1500 ft-lbs all the time, especially when I hunt with a muzzle loader. It hasn't stopped me from being successful, nor have I ever lost an animal. All using 1500 ft-lbs as a benchmark will do is lead hunters to rifles they can't shoot as well. Being able to deliver a bullet to target accurately kills game not ft-lbs of energy.

I never said a .277 caliber rifle was the best choice for.long range work. I just said that there is a supply of decent long range bullets out there for the .277 caliber please don't use sectional density to prove your point about long range capabilities of bullets. A 7mm 175 grain bullet has the same exact same sectional density if it's a round nose, spitzer, or VLD.
 
Last edited:
My goal isn't to put anyone behind a rifle they can't shoot. A 7mm-08 will do 1500 ft-lbs out to over 400y with a 160gr accubond, which is as far as it probably makes sense to shoot elk and moose anyways. And 7mm-08 is not exactly know for being a recoil monster. You'll note I'm NOT advocating for the magnum cartridge here.

And trust me, there's a BIG difference between .277 bullets and the .264 or .284 bullets for long range. It's not even close. The only .277 bullets that push 0.6 G1 BC are copper or have voids and are over-length to run in the factory guns or stabilize in the factory barrels. If you stick to .277 140gr boat tails, most of them don't even hit 0.5 BC. Meanwhile the 6.5 and 7mm calibers hit 0.6 BC with no problem whatsoever.
 
I happen to have Lilja barrel 270,24.5" long and Mike Rock barrel 270Wby, 26" barrel and when I thinned the herd nephew got Hart barrel 270 and 270WSM with Layton barrel.

If I needed 1500 ft lbs in Lilja barrel 270 using Nosler 150gr ABLR I would lack 5 ft lbs at 800yds using Bryan Litz Ballistic.

Myself I won't entry 1000yd match with any 270 you just have better bullets for the 6mm,6.5,7mm and 30cal but that doesn't mean you can't have accurate 270 build. That 300WSM that has small group 1000yd that rifle was in heavy class and I'm guess it weight 25lbs.
 
The Big D said:
My goal isn't to put anyone behind a rifle they can't shoot. A 7mm-08 will do 1500 ft-lbs out to over 400y with a 160gr accubond, which is as far as it probably makes sense to shoot elk and moose anyways. And 7mm-08 is not exactly know for being a recoil monster. You'll note I'm NOT advocating for the magnum cartridge here.
Click to expand...

I can deliver a 140 grain .277 Accubond (.496 BC) bullet with 1500+ ft-lbs of energy at 400 yards as well with the same amount of recoil in the same weight rifle as your 7-08. It'll also have the same amount of drop and windage out to 400+ yards assuming both rifles and shooters are equally accurate. However 1500 ft-lbs is still arbitrary number with no factual proof that it is needed to kill big game.


The Big D said:
And trust me, there's a BIG difference between .277 bullets and the .264 or .284 bullets for long range. It's not even close. The only .277 bullets that push 0.6 G1 BC are copper or have voids and are over-length to run in the factory guns or stabilize in the factory barrels. If you stick to .277 140gr boat tails, most of them don't even hit 0.5 BC. Meanwhile the 6.5 and 7mm calibers hit 0.6 BC with no problem whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Yes the 6.5 has got both the 7mm and .277 calibers beat. However, find me one 140 grain 7mm bullet that breaks .5 BC or better yet find me a 150 grain bullet that has listed .6 BC (outside of the LRAB)! You can't the lightest bullets that gets into .6 BC for a 7mm is 160 grains and up, the only bullet in .277 that hits .650BC is 165 grains and it isn't a solid copper bullet(Matrix VLD). Hmmm something funny's going on here, find me a non match 7mm bullet of equal design and weight that has a better BC than a .277 caliber bullet?

Here is some reference material:

NOSLER%20ACCUBOND.png


NOSLER%20BULLETS.png



SIERRA%20BULLETS.png


Let me give you a hand it's the Berger 140 grain hunting VLD bullet .510 BC. Sierra HPBT Gameking 140 grain as well as Nosler BT and Partition 140 grain bullets have a slightly better BC in 140 grain but not anywhere near .500 BC. I didn't include the 160 grain .277 Partition bullet because it isn't the same profile as the 160 grain 7mm bullet.

However, Hornady, Swift, and Speer don't offer .277 and 7mm caliber bullets in the same weight and design. I wonder why that is? If they did then the .277 caliber would almost always have a better BC. Since the .277 is slightly smaller in diameter if the bullets weigh the same and have the same exact design then the .277 caliber bullet will be longer resulting most time in a higher BC for the .277 bullets.

BTW here are plenty of high BC bullets that work in a standard length factory magazine and don't necessarily require a faster than factory twist. The one exception in here is the Nosler LRAB, while Brian Litz found accuracy acceptable in a 10 twist it does better in a faster than factory twist rifle. He happened to say the same thing about the 168 grain 7mm LRAB.

500%20bc%20bullets.png


Where the .277 caliber is lacking is it was never implemented into military service. So it can't be included in Service rifle matches, and since a lot of competition is done with service rifles the 6.5mm, 7mm, and .308 caliber bullets get most of the attention from manufactures. In hunting bullets there is no real world difference between .277 and 7mm calibers except on paper.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll give it to you - you don't understand what you're arguing, but you're doing with lots of pointless pictures :D

If you really think .270 is suitable for long range, give it a try. You'll find yourself handicapped relative to every single other gun in use because of your own stubbornness.
 
The Big D said:
Well, I'll give it to you - you don't understand what you're arguing, but you're doing with lots of pointless pictures

If you really think .270 is suitable for long range, give it a try. You'll find yourself handicapped relative to every single other gun in use because of your own stubbornness.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the .270 is the next best thing since sliced bread in the long range game. What I'm saying and you're not following is that the 7mm bullets really doesn't have an advantage over the .277 caliber bullets until you start shooting bullets heavier than 160 grains. BC doesn't lie and all my pointless pictures was to show that in many instance bullets 150 grains or less the .277 has a higher BC than a 7mm. I prefer 6mm bullets for long range work, but I'm not so closed minded not to understand that the .277 caliber has potential in certain applications.
 
Originally Posted by The Big D
Well, I'll give it to you - you don't understand what you're arguing, but you're doing with lots of pointless pictures

If you really think .270 is suitable for long range, give it a try. You'll find yourself handicapped relative to every single other gun in use because of your own stubbornness.
Click to expand...

Well call me a dummy because I DO THINK the 270 is capable for long range.

What is common and successful in long range, the 6.5 Creedmoor.

The Creedmoor using the popular Hornady 140 Gr. A-max at 2700 fps.

At 5000 Ft elv. it goes subsonic at 1500 yards, and with a 10 mph cross wind drifts 10.9 moa

Looking at the 270, using 150 grn Hornady SST or IB, at 2750 fps same alt. goes sub sonic a 1500 yards, the drift at 1500 yards is 12.1 MOA.

The difference is 1.2 moa drift, (5 clicks on a 1/4 moa scope)

Lets look at the 308 in comparison. It is considered a long range rifle. Looking at the M118 LR our military snipers ups, 175 SMK, at 2600 fps, it goes subsonic at 1300 fps the drift if you shot it at 1500 would be 14 MOA.

Tell me again how the 270 wouldn't be a capable long range target rifle.

The difference between the 270 and the other two is action length. The 270 requires a long action where the other two can get buy on a short action.

People on the internet are gonna tell you that the long action cant keep up with the short action in the accuracy department.

I call BS, but instead of my opinion we can compare the Marines M40, its a 308 Short Action. The Army's M24 is basically the same gun but a long action.

We can argue tell the cows come home which is best, it would really depend on whether youre Marine or Army (wont even throw in that nobody beats the Army in the International Sniper Competition).

The 270 was designed for and is an excellent hunting round. It is a late coming in the LR game, but that is because being a hunting round, no match bullets were made for it.

This is still true, Hornady doesn't make an A-Max in .277. But the increase in popularity of long range hunting they make the SST/IB, plus Berger makes the VLD hunting bullet in 277, both can hold their own in the accuracy department including LR Precision Rifle shooting.

Look at the facts, do not rule out the 270 Win as a long range round, if fills the gap between popular 6.5s and 7mm/284s.

You put them in the same target rifle, its as good as most, better then some, worse then some.

I don't know enough about them but 165/175 Gr. 270 bullets are starting to show up, the BC of these bullets will push the 270 into the category of the 300/338 long range match guns.
 
There seems to be problems over the ambiguous term, "long range" as applied to the .270. As noted in an earlier post, the .270 Winchester is traditionally considered a hunting cartridge. In its role as a hunting cartridge (not sniper use, not long-range target use), an admittedly arbitrary range of 450 maximum yards is(why would a "sportsman" take a shot any further than that, if even that far?), long range...after all shooting 30-30 Winchesters to 150 yards is considered "short range". Therefore, many of the arguments seem to be comparing apples to oranges.
It seems to me, that at realistic and ethical hunting ranges, the standard .270 Winchester is adequate and therefore, I have no need or interest in the .270 WSM. Instead of going to the .270 WSM, I would spend my resources on practice the the .270 so as not to think that somehow a extra couple of hundred fps will improve my hunting success.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I have the wrong idea of short, medium, long range.

Historically short range is 100-300, mid range 400-700, long range 800 - 1000, extreme long range is beyond 1000 yards.

In long range target shooting, it doesn't matter, all the bullet has to do is poke holes in paper, or bang steel.

In long range hunting, the bullet has to humanely kill the animal.

In the case of the former, bullets are designed to get the best BC.

In the later, the bullets have to expand, penetrate, for fragmate (in the case of bergers to humanely kill an animal.

To give you an example the Berger bullet is designed to penetrate a few inches and then completely come apart, totally destroying the nervous system of the animal. This would require a certain velocity when the bullet hits the target. I contacted Berger to inquire as to the velocity needed. I was told that it is 1800 fps. So to determine the range to successful humanely kill an animal, you need to pick a max range where your round will work. Taking my 300 WM, using the 210 Berger, and my loading, I'm limed to about 850 yards. My wifes 243 using Berger bullets has a max hunting range of about 650.

Not all animals have the nerves system of deer/antelope. Animals such as bear or hogs need a bullet that expands, holds together and penetrates. Velocity isn't critical, the idea would be a bullet that expands to twice its diameter penetrates the animal stopping on the hide on the far side of the animal.

Back to the 270. As stated not many target bullets out there. However Hornady and Berger, to name two, designed hunting bullets for long range. With Berger using my load I'm limited to about 700 yards. With Hornady, about the same for the 150 SST which will come apart like the Berger. Their Interbond holds together, and depending on the animal can be used at longer ranges. (the Hornady SST and IB 150s have the exact same GI BC of 545. The Berger has the GI BC of 531.

Though designed for hunting they also make excellent long range target rounds, both will poke holes in paper or ring steel at Extreme Long Range (1400 for the Berger, 1500 for the Hornady).

And both are excellent mid range (650 yard) hunting rounds.
 
The only reason I would consider a short magnum is for the short actions they come in. And that is because I am very used to shooting short action rifles and like them.
 
Well put, Kraig.

I would amend a couple of your points, but only slightly, and only because of my personal brand of OCD. ;)

Short, mid, and long range, (for me) varies with the cartridge and gun. Something in the .308/06/.270 or magnum class is quite a different matter, for me, than a .45-70, .30-30 or .44Magnum.

The purpose of a hunting bullet is to humanely kill game, at every range you can accurately deliver it.

Accuracy is a prerequisite. Penetration is a requirement. Expansion is a luxury.

It is a nice luxury, and very helpful, but its not an absolute requirement. Cast bullets and "solids" perform very well without expanding.

Smaller calibers benefit more from expanding bullets, proportionally, than larger ones. "Deader, quicker" is always desirable, but if your cartridge is marginal (for that shot), an expanding bullet, alone, isn't going to guarantee success.

Because expanding bullets generally work very well, some get in the habit of assuming the opposite must be true as well, and that simply isn't the case.

There are even situations where an expanding bullet actually does not work as well as a non-expanding one. Rare, but they exist. (the devil is in the details)

I think it's great that you have figured out the max ranges for best bullet performance in your guns (including expansion), and limit yourself to that. If more people did that, we'd have fewer wounded game animals suffering.
 
Ray I agree with that to a point. I have dedicated target rifles I would never take hunting. And hunting rifles I wouldn't use in a match.

I wouldn't think of shooting a High Power Match with My Model 70 Featherweight (270 Win) nor would I consider using my heavy Super Match M1A hunting.

But on the other side of a coin, I believe if one was to take his hunting rifle and use it in practice or competition, he/she would benefit a lot in hunting with that rifle.

That's why I'm a fan of the Hunter Category in F-Class shooting.
 
Kraigwy. Correct me if I'm wrong but are these rule for that new Hunter Category.

The new Factory Category is for any hunter or shooter that has an “out of the box” or semi-custom high power rifle with a bi-pod or just a sand bag, and wants to try their hand at longer ranges. This is not a valid NRA High Power Category, but still allows you to compete at the longer ranges and test your mettle.


What do they mean by Semi-Custom?
 
Personally I was a pro Magnum hunter for years. Since then, I have moved away from the magnum mindset and moved back to the conventional hunting calibers. The 270 Winchester was the main reason for this move. It did everything my Magnums rifles did for all my hunting needs. It shoots way longer than I will ever need to and the bang/flop reaction is just as instant.

A big advantage is I can get cheap, effective over the counter ammo that gets the job done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top