Forums46
Topics538,050
Posts9,732,362
Members87,055
|
Most Online25,604 Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
.270 Winchester or .270 WSM
#5529438
01/09/15 11:59 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 945
USMCatfish
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 945 |
I am curious what yall have to say about these 2 rounds for here in Texas. Trying to fill a gap between rifles. I never shot a .270 or the .270WSM but loo[b][/b]king at some ballistics the .270WSM looks to edge out the .270 just a little. I could be wrong I am just trying to understand what I read and exactly what are the short magnums for.
The gap is .22-250, .243, ? .30-06, .300wm, .30-.338.
I was also wondering which one would have the most recoil and what it might equal to.
Thank you Steve
Last edited by USMCatfish; 01/09/15 12:57 PM.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529456
01/09/15 12:11 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124
postoak
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124 |
The .270 WCF (WCF = Winchester Center Fire, the full name of the cartridge) is a fine cartridge for all Texas whitetail, mule deer, and antelope hunting. I'm not sure why the WSM was introduced or needed, although I'm sure someone will step in and defend it.
Recoil for the 130 grain bullet in an 8 pound rifle (a standard weight rifle with scope will add up to about 8.3 pounds) is 16.5 fp for the .270 WCF and 18.7 fp for the WSM. By way of comparison, the .30-06 with 150 grain bullet in the same weight rifle is 17.6 fp.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529480
01/09/15 12:51 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 713
headhunter54
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 713 |
I own both and they are great for anything you listed. The WSM does have an edge but the 270 is a lot easier to find ammo for. Flip a coin.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: headhunter54]
#5529498
01/09/15 01:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 12,156
kry226
The General
|
The General
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 12,156 |
I own both and they are great for anything you listed. The WSM does have an edge but the 270 is a lot easier to find ammo for. Flip a coin. Most likely cheaper too.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529500
01/09/15 01:04 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,507
kmon11
junior
|
junior
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,507 |
Agree flip a coin.
Find a rifle you like, if it is a short action WSM for a long action WCF. A deer or hog will never know the difference.
lf the saying "Liar, Liar your pants on fire" were true Mainstream news might be fun to watch
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529554
01/09/15 01:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Nogalus Prairie
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091 |
The WSMs were primarily introduced to have long action performance in a short action rifle to lessen weight. It was just a happy coincidence that the cartridge configuration gave the .270 WSM a little added performance over the .270 Win.
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529561
01/09/15 01:39 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 60,483
BOBO the Clown
kind of a big deal
|
kind of a big deal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 60,483 |
I am curious what yall have to say about these 2 rounds for here in Texas. Trying to fill a gap between rifles. I never shot a .270 or the .270WSM but loo[b][/b]king at some ballistics the .270WSM looks to edge out the .270 just a little. I could be wrong I am just trying to understand what I read and exactly what are the short magnums for.
The gap is .22-250, .243, ? .30-06, .300wm, .30-.338.
I was also wondering which one would have the most recoil and what it might equal to.
Thank you Steve 270 wsm has more recoil but it touch hotter also. Can't go wrong with either. Stxranchman go to rifle his a 270. 257wby is very similar to the 270 Your gap is .25, 26, and .27 260/6.5 creed, (7-08 similar ballistics but 7mm) 25-06, 257wby 270, 270wsm
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529576
01/09/15 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,517
Earl
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,517 |
For me it's the .270 because I've standardized my house on it. Both myself and 2 sons own and hunt with the .270 with all 3 rifles sighted in on Remington 130gr Core Lokt's which can be found anywhere ammunition is sold and I buy more of the green and yellow boxes whenever it's on sale.
Either will work, but the .270 will be a bit less on recoil. Either will take any game in Texas. Only the .270 though can be found wherever you find ammunition.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529595
01/09/15 01:56 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549
redchevy
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549 |
In my opinion with a 30-06 in the lineup neither a 270 or 270 wsm fill a gap.
Are you about the lattest thing and get caught up on numbers? If so the WSM is for you. If you want a good gun that works is reliable ammo has and will always be available in factory loadings and is cheaper to shoot you want a 270 WCF.
It's hell eatin em live
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: Earl]
#5529606
01/09/15 02:01 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264
fowlplayr
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
|
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264 |
What will you be using the rifle for? Given that you already have a 30-06, your "gap' is actually quite narrow as far as practicality. The 270 Win isn't going to give you anything you don't already have the -06.
If you're just itching for a new toy, get something with some wow factor like the WSM shooting 110 grain TTSX.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: Nogalus Prairie]
#5529607
01/09/15 02:01 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124
postoak
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124 |
The WSMs were primarily introduced to have long action performance in a short action rifle to lessen weight. It was just a happy coincidence that the cartridge configuration gave the .270 WSM a little added performance over the .270 Win. Of all the BS that gun writers have put out through the decades, the worst is the idea that we need short actions so rifles can be built lighter. It's BS because 1) you can build a light rifle with a long action, 2) the vast, vast, majority of hunters aren't lugging their rifles around at port arms for long periods (and, in fact, in Texas, most of us are sitting in a blind with the rifle propped against the wall (and we got to the blind after a tiring 1/4 mile walk)), 3) if weight is such a concern, how hard is it to lose a couple of pounds of your own weight since most of us are way over weight?
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529610
01/09/15 02:03 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124
postoak
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124 |
And as for short actions being more "handy", we're talking about 1/2" difference. When I was young I bought into all that and all my early rifles were short action. When I finally did buy a long action rifle, I didn't even notice the difference.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529643
01/09/15 02:20 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Nogalus Prairie
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091 |
Why all the hate? I'm not trying to start an argument.
I have both. I love my Nosler .270 WSM. 7 1/4 lbs all-in, a short stroke action, and 100-150 FPS advantage over the .270 Win. Those are all real-world advantages over my Sako .270 Win. Especially on a tough backpack hunt.
That said, I love my Sako too. So much so I just took it on the most important hunt of my life. The conditions were such that I was willing to tote the extra weight-and I just wanted my old friend of 35 years in my hands when the time came to shoot.
If I was not seeking a specialty mountain rifle, I would pick the .270 Win. over the WSM-primarily for ammo availability as mentioned above. But I sure ain't going to rag on anyone who wants the added performance and the short action of the .270 WSM.
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529652
01/09/15 02:22 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124
postoak
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124 |
I'm not hating on ya. These are just thoughts I've had rattling around in my head lately and I decided this thread was a good place to get them out.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: postoak]
#5529658
01/09/15 02:24 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264
fowlplayr
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
|
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264 |
I'm not hating on ya. These are just thoughts I've had rattling around in my head lately and I decided this thread was a good place to get them out. That's about like kicking the dog when you get home from a bad day at work.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: postoak]
#5529681
01/09/15 02:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Nogalus Prairie
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091 |
The WSMs were primarily introduced to have long action performance in a short action rifle to lessen weight. It was just a happy coincidence that the cartridge configuration gave the .270 WSM a little added performance over the .270 Win. Of all the BS that gun writers have put out through the decades, the worst is the idea that we need short actions so rifles can be built lighter. It's BS because 1) you can build a light rifle with a long action, 2) the vast, vast, majority of hunters aren't lugging their rifles around at port arms for long periods (and, in fact, in Texas, most of us are sitting in a blind with the rifle propped against the wall (and we got to the blind after a tiring 1/4 mile walk)), 3) if weight is such a concern, how hard is it to lose a couple of pounds of your own weight since most of us are way over weight? It's not BS. I'll take your points in turn: 1) Yes, you can. But, all else being equal-you can build lighter with a short action. Which means in a SĄ you are not having to sacrifice in other areas. Short actions weigh less than long actions. 2)You are correct. But the goal building lighter rifles is not for Texas blind hunting-where you can use a 15 pound rifle if you please. So IMO you are missing the point. I don't think I have seen any writer tout lighter rifles for Texas blind hunting. 3)Weight is always a concern. Have you ever backpack hunted the mountains? Every ounce makes a difference. And two pounds of extra body weight is not the same as two pounds of extra rifle weight. In fact, two pounds of extra pack weight is not the same as two pounds of extra rifle weight. Because there is no easy way to carry a rifle in the mountains, less weight and more compactness are big advantages in a rifle. Much more so than quoting numbers can illustrate.
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: postoak]
#5529683
01/09/15 02:34 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Nogalus Prairie
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091 |
I'm not hating on ya. These are just thoughts I've had rattling around in my head lately and I decided this thread was a good place to get them out. Lol I got ya. I do that too.
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529686
01/09/15 02:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,607
Revoman
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,607 |
Stick with the old 270 Win. Rifles are more available along with ammo
Call'm an Kill'm
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: Nogalus Prairie]
#5529733
01/09/15 03:00 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,832
Drop Tine
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,832 |
Why all the hate? I'm not trying to start an argument.
I have both. I love my Nosler .270 WSM. 7 1/4 lbs all-in, a short stroke action, and 100-150 FPS advantage over the .270 Win. Those are all real-world advantages over my Sako .270 Win. Especially on a tough backpack hunt.
That said, I love my Sako too. So much so I just took it on the most important hunt of my life. The conditions were such that I was willing to tote the extra weight-and I just wanted my old friend of 35 years in my hands when the time came to shoot.
If I was not seeking a specialty mountain rifle, I would pick the .270 Win. over the WSM-primarily for ammo availability as mentioned above. But I sure ain't going to rag on anyone who wants the added performance and the short action of the .270 WSM.
I have both also, actually 2 of each. (Probably gonna be selling one of the wsm, don't need 2 exact rifles)My wsm's are Tikka T3 Lite's in Bell and Carlson stocks. All in about 7 1/2 lbs. Terrific balance and easy to carry. The 150 gr .277 bullets compare slightly better to 180 gr .308 bullets in BC and SD. This is where the wsm begins to shine. 150 gr at 3150 puts some serious smack down when needed. Mine recoils similar to my Browning X bolt 30-06. In a lightweight mountain rifle set up, it's about my max for comfortable recoil. I had a Sako A7 in 300 Win that was not any fun to shoot. I enjoy shooting these rifles. I could also run a 110 gr Barnes TTSX at 3600+ to pretty much match 257 weatherby 100 gr TTSX. I'd have no reservations running a 150 gr Partition or Scirocco into bull Elk or Nilgai. DoubleTap sells a 160 gr Partition load that is supposed to run 3025 fps. .298 SD in a Partition over 3000 fps should penetrate like no tomorrow.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529759
01/09/15 03:11 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 945
USMCatfish
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 945 |
My goal in filling the gap was to go from a (85gr .243) to a(168gr .30-06) So when my kids get a little bigger they can manage the recoil. That is were I thought about the (130gr .270). Plus as a added bonus as I get older I think I would like the less recoil of the .270.
I just heard and read a lot about the .270's(WSM and WCF)and was curious about the pros and cons of both.
Steven
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529786
01/09/15 03:20 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549
redchevy
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549 |
Personally if your looking for less recoil than a 30-06 throwing 168 grains, I think you need to look further than a 130 gr 270. I don't think there will be any noticeable difference.
If looking to cut recoil I would be looking at 25-06, and the 308 family of cartriges, you already have a 243, so 260, 7mm08, 308 itself, or a 6.5 creedmore.
It's hell eatin em live
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529807
01/09/15 03:26 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 60,483
BOBO the Clown
kind of a big deal
|
kind of a big deal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 60,483 |
270 has a lot less recoil then the 30-06. Now the 270 wsm will be similar to the 30-06
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529809
01/09/15 03:27 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549
redchevy
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,549 |
Yeah ive heard that my whole life and its never been true to me.
It's hell eatin em live
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: USMCatfish]
#5529814
01/09/15 03:28 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124
postoak
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,124 |
Just shoot Remington Managed Recoil loads in your .30-06. These fire a 125 grain bullet at 2660 fps.
|
|
|
Re: .270 Winchester or .270 WSM
[Re: BOBO the Clown]
#5529827
01/09/15 03:31 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264
fowlplayr
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
|
Shenanigans Scorecard keeper
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,264 |
270 has a lot less recoil then the 30-06. That is true if using the same gun, weight, etc. I've shot some light weight 270's that would stomp you like a mule, but those were 150 grain too.
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, TreeBass, txcornhusker
|