270 WSM vs 264 Win Mag

I

its_a_dinger

Inactive
Does anyone have experience with either of these cartridges?

I am looking for my next round and have been set on 270 wsm for years but it's so expensive. :eek: I haven't calculated the .264 cost yet; that being said I am a reloader.

Has anyone encountered stability issues with either? (twist rates, patterns)

The reason I have selected these two cartridges is because they are surprisingly close in drop and drift with the 270 winning at energy, all measured out to 1000yds. I don't feel the need to go to a .30+ cal because I will be punching paper/steel and won't enjoy the recoil/price.
 
I have a 270 WSM and I have killed deer, antelope and elk with it. I do not and have not used it as a target rifle, but as a hunting rifle I see little to complain about. I use charges of H1000 powder, Fed 215 primers and 160 gr Nosler Partitions.
As far as game goes, it drops um where it hit um.
I have used the standard 270 Winchester for many years before I got the 270 WSM. To be 100% honest I can't see the WSM doing anything the standard Winchester has not done for me for 5 decades, but it's certain;y no worse either.
 
I have 3 .264 Win Mags and 2 .270 WSM. Balistically, they are so close it is a toss up. Does same damage to deer. All my .264 win mags have been rebarreled. My .270 WSMS have less than 300 shots on their barrels. Bullet availability is a little better for the 6.5, but the .27 has had a lot of new bullets come out in the last few years. The gap that used to exist is no longer there. I guess question is do you want a short action or a magnum action.
 
Where do you buy brass and what's the life on a case if you run close to starting charges?

I've heard that people can't tell a huge difference between the standard vs short. I don't have a place to shoot over 600yds but at 1000yds the standard 270 drops 18.3 ft more than the WSM.Therefore I imagine range error would be something to watch with the regular 270.
 
The last place I bought brass for both them was Midway. I run the .264 Win Mags. according to some old data that is well above current published max. Due to the hot loads, case life is not wonderful. Winchester cases are the best I have used(for life, not quality) and they last 6 or 7 times before the primer pockets get too loose.

I run the .270 WSM according to modern data. I have reloaded some of the cases 8 times and they still seem fine.

Just keep in mind, the .264 Win mag does not truly shine until it has a 28" barrel. Do not even consider one with a 24". 26" inch still leaves a lot of room for improvement.
 
Last edited:
Terrible barrel wear. The .264 is a barrel burner, dont let anyone tell you otherwise. I do not know exact count, but all were definitely under 1000 rounds. Probably in the high 800's to mid 900's.
 
I have not really kept up with the modern production .264. I saw a new Winchester Supergrade for sale last year that I would not have hesitated to purchase if I needed one. All my .264s are mod 70 with standard countour barrel. Two of them shot about 5/8 inch groups at 100. One of them shot 3/8 inch groups at 100. Now they all have lilja barrels on them and have had the actions trued. They all shoot about 3/8" One of the actions was horrid from the factory and it still shot that well. Surprised the heck out of me when we found out how off center it was threaded.

Of the .270 WSMS; One is a TC Venture that shoots about 3/4" groups. The other is a semi custom Mod 70 that shoots about 1/2".(It has the action work done, but the barrel on it is not great) I know a couple of 1k competition shooters who shoot the .270 WSM successfully in bench rifles and they do as well as anyone. The cartridge is capable of accuracy. I personally believe the WSM is capable of better groups, but that is just my opinion. It proportionally is more similar to cartridges like the 6PPC and 6BR than the .264 Win mag is.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to The Firing Line. Will this be a bolt-action rifle? Will it be strictly a target rifle? Or will it be also used for hunting, and if so, what game will be hunted? If it is to be strictly targets, then you might want to compare your prospective candidates against the 6.5mm Creedmoor. On the other hand, if you feel you need more power for larger game than targets, I suggest you compare your two candidates against the 270 Winchester. Since a 24" barreled 270 Winchester with optimal handloads will easily launch 130 grain bullets at 3,200 fps; 140 grain bullets at 3,100 fps; and 150 grain bullets can achieve 3,000 fps; you might want to consider what barrel length you will need to beat those velocities with a 264 Winchester Magnum or 270 WSM. Will it be worth it, considering that you will have reduced magazine capacity, will burn more powder, and if you shoot a lot, may experience reduced barrel life? How much recoil can you tolerate and continue to shoot well, and for how many shots per session before recoil takes a toll on you, the shooter? Lower recoil means you can shoot longer before you've hit your limit. Magazine capacity will be irrelevant on the target range and might not matter very much in the field. To a hunter that will perhaps fire a very few rounds when actually hunting, recoil may not matter much as long as they can get those first shots off accurately. I think firing off three boxes of ammo from a 300 magnum at one sitting would have a greater deleterious effect on most shooter's marksmanship than they would care to admit. Yet I think nothing of doing that with a 270 Winchester, except to reach for another box and continue. I think the Creedmoor would likely be better yet. I don't have one, but if I was thinking of getting a dedicated target rifle for long range, it would receive strong consideration. Good luck in your quest.
 
Welcome to The Firing Line. Will this be a bolt-action rifle? Will it be strictly a target rifle? Or will it be also used for hunting, and if so, what game will be hunted? If it is to be strictly targets, then you might want to compare your prospective candidates against the 6.5mm Creedmoor. On the other hand, if you feel you need more power for larger game than targets, I suggest you compare your two candidates against the 270 Winchester. Since a 24" barreled 270 Winchester with optimal handloads will easily launch 130 grain bullets at 3,200 fps; 140 grain bullets at 3,100 fps; and 150 grain bullets can achieve 3,000 fps; you might want to consider what barrel length you will need to beat those velocities with a 264 Winchester Magnum or 270 WSM. Will it be worth it, considering that you will have reduced magazine capacity, will burn more powder, and if you shoot a lot, may experience reduced barrel life? How much recoil can you tolerate and continue to shoot well, and for how many shots per session before recoil takes a toll on you, the shooter? Lower recoil means you can shoot longer before you've hit your limit. Magazine capacity will be irrelevant on the target range and might not matter very much in the field. To a hunter that will perhaps fire a very few rounds when actually hunting, recoil may not matter much as long as they can get those first shots off accurately. I think firing off three boxes of ammo from a 300 magnum at one sitting would have a greater deleterious effect on most shooter's marksmanship than they would care to admit. Yet I think nothing of doing that with a 270 Winchester, except to reach for another box and continue. I think the Creedmoor would likely be better yet. I don't have one, but if I was thinking of getting a dedicated target rifle for long range, it would receive strong consideration. Good luck in your quest.
 
I am trying to post pictures so we'll see how this goes.

Red: 6.5 Creed
Green: 270 WSM
Bullets:Berger 140gn VLDs
 

Attachments

  • 270wsm.6.5creed.2.jpg
    270wsm.6.5creed.2.jpg
    123.2 KB · Views: 154
  • 270wsm.6.5creed.jpg
    270wsm.6.5creed.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 102
Red: 270 Win
Green: 270 WSM
Blue: .223 Rem

Bullets: 140gn Partitions, 52gn MK HPBT

The MatchKing is the most accurate cartridge I've developed with my RRA. 450yds all day.
 

Attachments

  • 270.270wsm.223.jpg
    270.270wsm.223.jpg
    127.1 KB · Views: 78
  • 270.270wsm.223.2.jpg
    270.270wsm.223.2.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 51
r357, I'm glad I didn't see that M70 SG in 264, or I would have been forced to purchase it! :D Was it a current production BACO M70, or an older Classic? This thread forced me to check Winchesters web page, to see what is available this year. They list the Featherweight, the Sporter and the Extreme Weather as available in 264. Interesting that Winchester is supporting the old 264 that much.
 
I have limited experience with both but would not choose either for the purpose you state. Both are accurate enough but when at the range comfort for me has come to out weigh the need for the flattest shooting cartridge. Bullet drop is easily calculated and I'm more than willing to aim a little higher and not be punished by recoil. If you are really wanting one of those two though I would choose the WSM. The 264 is a great cartridge but finding new brass can sometimes be near impossible and being a belted case can sometimes add steps into the reloading process. Both are barrel burners, you can't put that much powder through that small of a hole and have it any other way.
 
Well, I believe you can simply resize 7mm Remington Magnum brass to 264 WinMag, trim if needed and you should be good to go.
The important thing I noticed about those trajectory graphs is that it's all wrong: In real rifles, the sights are above the bore; thus, the rifle always shoots low from the muzzle until the bullet reaches the point where it crosses the line of sight, whereupon it continues to climb and will print high on targets at longer range until it gets out to where it again drops back across the line of sight, after which it increasingly hits low as the range continues to become more distant. So all rifles will have two points where they will be exactly sight in; one intentional point, perhaps at 300 yards or whatever the shooter chooses; and the other incidental, probably near 25 yards. How this is important is that on the type of graph that was posted it would show a 264 Magnum shooting with a much flatter trajectory versus the 6.5 Creedmoor than it really does. shooting the same bullets, the magnum starts out much faster, but at that velocity, the air is as though it is harder and thicker to move through, thus velocity loss is greater with the magnum than the Creedmore, in the first few hundred yards. You can see this in the energy figures too, as the Magnum is much more powerful until the range gets further. Beyond 500 yards, the magnum will still be more powerful, but won't be nearly so impressive. At really long range, the Magnum is delivering a lot more energy in recoil to your body than it's worth as it gains nothing significant way out there. Sure, with a 400 or 500 yard zero, the Creedmoor will have to climb higher above the line of sight at mid-range than the magnum. But after that, the differences in trajectory diminish further. On a target range, the trajectory difference becomes further irrelevant, as the distances are known and the shooters have expensive scopes that have precisely repeatable adjustments just for this purpose. Even the 45-70 is used in Sharps rifles for 1,000 yard competitions.
I think it boils down to the fact that the Creedmoor will be a much better target caliber, but 264 and 270 WSM are much better for Elk hunting.
 
Mudstud, It was a new rifle. The dealer that had it does not keep anything in inventory long, so I am quite confident it had not been on his shelf long.
 
Sure Shot, we had several match barrels for 6mm x 284 match rifles cryo treated. We observed absolutely no improvement in barrel life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top