Anyone shooting a 270 WSM? Looked at some ballistics info for a new rifle and was going with the 300 WM and decided to get the 270 WSM instead. Found some pretty interesting info on this site while doing some research. http://www.chuckhawks.com/myth_busting_calibers.htm I ordered a Tikka T3 stainless and waiting on my FFL to get it in. Might put a slightly heavier stainless barrel on it. Anyhow, Looking at several bullet ammo/bullet options. One being the 130 grain Winchester BST. Anyone shooting this caliber and any experience with it. Ive shot several animals with the 270 win and 308 and wanted to try something different. -Taylor

You will enjoy it. Gain about 150-200 fps over the .270 Win in a short action. What's not to like?

I shoot 140 grain Nosler Accubonds and 130 grain TSXs, but the world is wide open to you because there are lots of great bullets for it.

If its the same bullet used in the "winchester deer season" stuff then I give it a thumbs down. It doesnt seem to expand hitting an animal inside 120 yards. As in my wife has shot 2 deer and 2 pigs with it in a .270 win, and with both deer the exit was practically the same size as the entrance. The exit on the hogs was no bigger than a nickel

I like it best of the short mags. Shot two large bull elk with mine with 130 TTSXs. Both were a little over 200 yards; one dropped where he stood, the other made it about 50 yards.

It is a good hunting round, mine gets a diet of 140gr Accubonds. Haven't tried anything else as those shoot very well in my Tikka to the point I see no need for another bullet. To be honest I rarely shoot the 270WSM but it is up to the hunting tasks I will put it to any time.

My hunting load is Winchester silver box 150 grain loads. The gun likes them, and they are easy to find.

The 270WSM launches the 150 grain projectiles at the same speed as the 270 Winchester with 130 grain bullets. The heavier bullet will carry better, and is more likely to penetrate through for a good blood trail. The heavier bullets in a magnum are also less likely to damage the meat.

Most of the points brought up in a 270-280 comparison would apply just as well in a 270WSM-7mmRM comparison. They both shoot a 140 grain bullet at the same speed for example, according to the Speer manual. The only additional difference is that the WSM case is for a short action. - Otherwise, it's the 270-280 debate, all over again.

I find that the 270WSM will do everything that is normally done with the 7mmRM, but with less powder and less recoil. A very pleasant, very efficient and effective round.

Here's mine:

I have a Tikka T3 in 270 WSM and love it !!!
I use Winchester Supreme Ballistic SilverTip 130 grain and could not ask for any thing better as of now.
I have only used it for whitetail, but a couple of them were big Kansas bucks with live weight probably close to 300 lbs., and they performed great. Furthest I have had a deer travel after the shot so far was a doe that made it about 30 yards. Most have dropped straight down even with behind the shoulder lung shots. It is my go to rifle.



Here is one of the big bodied Kansas bucks I shot with my Tikka 270 WSM.

I'm shooting the Browing Hells Canyon in the 270 WSM. Getting 1/2" groups with 130 grain ballistic tips. Only drawback is the availability of brass . I also am getting good groups from 130 and 140 grain Bergers.

It's the only one of the WSMs that gained any appreciable velocity over the basic standard length cartridge of the same caliber.

There is an ongoing debate over why that is....

Pretty sure the 300 WSM makes appreciable gains over a 30-06, like 200 to 300 fps in just about every weight and results in 500 to 600 more lb-ft in every weight. I could be wrong but I'd call that appreciable.

Charles, that rifle is NICE! Mbavo, we need to hunt together!! Thanks guys. I think I'm going with the 130 gr Winchester BST

Another vote for 140 grain Accubonds. Great bullet and caliber.

I like 140 gr Accubonds in my 270 wsm. Shot a scimitar oryx yesterday afternoon with it. Ranch owner said oryx were extremely tuff and that you rarely get exit wounds. Shot through shoulders and dropped right there, with an exit. He said that just doesn't happen and was impressed.

The proper comparison is to the .300 Win Mag - the cartridge the .300 WSM sought to duplicate in a short action. Which is why it's called a .300 WSM (not a .30-06 WSM, which wouldn't make sense anyway since the .30-06 is not a Winchester-developed nor a magnum cartridge).

270 WSM is the only short mag I would consider.

Dangit, you guys got me searching the internet for a 270wsm!

Should've been in my shoes a few years back. I needed to find a specific 270wsm for my wife and no one had them after they'd been discontinued. Luckily after I burnt up the internet for months a relative mentioned he still had one of the rifles in the box. It cost me a new version 300RUM to make that swap.

I shoot 140gr Accubonds and love the round.

I'd like to get one for Mrs. B but I'm not sure I could pry that 7-08 out of her hands without a hell of a fight.

The 270 WSM is an awesome round and one I would like to have...

The 300WSM is an 300H&H IMO so... why?

And that's really what it all comes down to, caliber and velocity. We tend to re-invent the wheel thinking we've created something new. While I really like the 270 WSM it's nothing new, that caliber and velocity was already being produced by the 270 Weatherby dang near 50 years before the WSM was created. Start pushing bullet weights above 150 and the Weatherby starts getting ahead real quick. About the only thing new being produced is those being based off the 50 cal BMG.

The main reason for the WSM's development was to achieve same performance of the parent long-action cartridges in a short action. Mainly for weight saving purposes in mountain rifles.

The increased performance of the .270 WSM was just a happy bonus for that particular round.

Mine gave her 7/08 up (700 MTN DM), but still takes it to one stand bc it's just easier for her to handle in the stand and she loves that little rifle. I got her set up with a good load and the CDS turrets so she can sit on the stands I usually hunt and to go hunt Colorado.

Why not? Instead of needing an extra long action, it works in a short action. Being more efficient, it will do the same work with less powder, which means less expense and less recoil.

It's like getting something for nothing.

All of the short magnums are there for a good reason, they all do something that the old style magnums cannot do, or cannot do as well. Usually this is a result of the modern case design being notably more efficient.

The 325 WSM for example, is so efficient that it provides much the same performance as the enormous 8mm Remington magnum - and with a shorter barrel. - Nothing but a short magnum will give you that kind of performance in such a small package.

I like the older style magnums too, they are not going anywhere - but a lot of shooters are going for the short magnums these days, and with very good reason.

* Uses less powder to do the same job.

* Fits in a short action.

* Does not require as long a barrel.

* Kicks less while doing the same job.

The 270WSM that we are discussing is going to be very hard to beat for a mountain rifle for example, whicht must be light and handy, while also being powerful and accurate.

My best five-shot, 100 yard group so far with a 270WSM is .317", center to center. With careful loading and the right gun, these cartridges are outstandingly accurate.

Have to some what disagree with you on that one. A 7mm 140 grain coming out at 3250 from a short or long magnum will have the same recoil if both rifles weigh the same. Now should either be lighter than the other then it would have more recoil.

The reduced recoil is a side-effect of the more efficient case, that does the same job with less powder. The powder is more likely to burn within the barrel, you get less of the "rocket effect" that muzzle brakes are designed to fight.

This is also why the WSM's can do well with several inches less barrel than the old style magnums require.