.270 Winchester or .270 WSM

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'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.

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 SÀ 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.

Lol I got ya. I do that too.

Stick with the old 270 Win. Rifles are more available along with ammo

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.

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

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.

270 has a lot less recoil then the 30-06. Now the 270 wsm will be similar to the 30-06

Yeah ive heard that my whole life and its never been true to me.

Just shoot Remington Managed Recoil loads in your .30-06. These fire a 125 grain bullet at 2660 fps.

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.

+1, I had a 270wsm that was not much different than the .270, it all depends on the platform

I've got both also. The 06 is actually heavier(Springfield 1903 sporterized)and still kicks more.

30-06 is a lost cartridge. Does all thing wells but nothing great similar to the 308(IMO)...but both kill a ton of game

Personally if I was the OP I'd build a short barreled SA rifle...260,creedmoor or 7-08. Fun, very little kick and aren't effectived via barrel length much

I would second that emotion.

That said, I just don't notice recoil much in any rifle below .300 WM I have ever owned except one: a Remington 700 stainless in 7mm Rem. Mag. (IDK what it was on that one-stock configuration/fit maybe?) I mean, I know my lightweight .270 WSM has more recoil than my Sako .270 WCF, but I just don't notice it. The only slight issue I have with the WSM is its weight and compactness do make it a little harder to get steady at the shot-but not enough so that I believe it's a problem as long as I make sure I have a steady rest. Which I always do.

There's always a tradeoff when discussing different calibers, weight, compactness, stocks, optics-anything having to do with a rifle's configuration. Each man just has to weigh the tradeoffs considering his uses and personal preferences.

So true. And the platform has a lot of other factors besides just weight-though it can hardly be argued weight is probably the most significant.

One reason I really love these forums is the variety of experience on here. I listen real closely when the super knowledgeable guys start agreeing on certain calibers, rifle configurations, etc. that they use and really like. Honestly, it's how I make most of my buying decisions on rifles and hunting equipment. I have rarely been disappointed.

+1.

+1 on the sporterized '06 too. My Daddy had one that must have weighed 11 lbs. and still kicked like a mule. I cannot explain why using numbers-it just did.

Probably why I have never hunted with a .30-06.....

I love my .270 and will defend it as viciously as i defend my .223. NP can tell you all about that!

LOL. Y'all are just better shots than me.

My dad hand built the stock for it when he was 16 so I will never get rid of it. But I hate hunting with it.

NP unless it has such a slow lock time that we actually relax a little. I don't know but it kicks lot harder then the 270 CDL I have. Both are in his safe and he always grabs 27". Has same feelings as me...only took him into his 60's though.lol

Like said above stock fit has a lot to do with recoil perception also. I have shot my buddies 7mm wby mag with 160 grain partitions several times and to me it shoots like a dream with little recoil, the stock fits me great. Shooting my brothers 270 with a 150 grain partition seems to have a similar amount of recoil even though I know that is impossible.

My daddy must have gotten tired of it quicker because he was not using it by the time I was old enough to remember anything. Most of the men in east TX I grew up with used Remington Woodsmasters (pump or semi-auto) in .30-06. IDK what the fascination with those inaccurate clunky things was-other than you could put a 10 or 20 or 30 shot magazine in them and they wanted to be ready for the apocalypse.

Daddy always brought the old '06 out to the annual sight-in sessions though. I think mostly for the men to laugh at us boys when we tried to shoot it to prove our manhood. Adults were mean like that back then.

I like the .270 Win. and have a couple of rifles chambered for it. One of my best friends has a .270 WSM, and he swears by it. I've shot his rifle several times and to me, the recoil difference, price and availability of ammunition isn't really worth the difference in performance.

Between the two the OP listed, I'd go for the standard 270. And if recoil is an issue, I'll agree with whoever suggested the 260. I had some folks here shooting yesterday (guy and a girl). They shot the 223 a bunch and the 260 a bunch and then I put them behind the 270. They both hadn't said a word about recoil prior to the 270, but when they cranked off a round they both said "ouch".

If you cut out all the magazine and internet gun BS, they would have ran out of material decades ago.

It doesn't sound like you're missing anything with the calibers listed.

[color:#FF0000][/color]

Exactly why I ask this kind of questions.

A short-action rifle with a 24" barrel will be the same length but 4-6 ounces lighter than a long action rifle with a 22" barrel. (A lot of this depends upon action design and barrel weight)

A 270WSM owner who reloads and wants 270 Winchester velocity only has to use 270WSM starting loads.

You can reduce the velocity of a 270WSM down to 270 level - but you cannot increase a 270's velocity to match what a 270WSM can do.

The 270WSM is more versatile, it can do whatever a 270 can do - and more.

The important thing that the 270WSM lets you do is to shoot heavier bullets at better velocity, which is a good thing when hunting larger animals like elk for example. Sure, a 270 might work OK for elk - but the 270WSM will do significantly better. It takes you from 'marginal' to 'just right'.

Chuck Hawks says that 270WSM has feeding problems in a bolt action. - Anybody having a problem with that? I shoot a single-shot, so I would not know about feeding problems in bolt guns. Is Chuck on the money there - or full of farina?

Inquiring minds want to know.

And I love me my XCR I(s) is 270wsm. A 140gr Accubond at 3320 is bad medicine.

You can make a long action rifle too light to shoot comfortably so do you really need to go lighter than that?

If you've got to add weight, far better to add it with a heavier barrel. My 1885 has a heavy 24
inch octagonal barrel with an 11 degree target crown. - It shoots bug holes and is a joy to shoot.

The gun weighs around 8.5 pounds with the compact scope - about right for a magnum.

My Tikkas feed that fat bullet with out a hitch....smooth as glass like all Tikkas!

That's kind of what I expected... I think Chuck tested an early production model when the cartridge first came out, and his opinion stayed frozen in that time-frame.

He claims it's a major problem - but I don't hear much about it from anyone but him.

In 20 years your kin will still be shooting the .270 and no one will even know what a 270 WSM is.

I wouldn't count on that.

Modern advances in case design developed by benchrest shooters give you more power and accuracy, while using less powder. - That will always be a winner.

There was some early feeding issues with the WSM rounds. They opened up the magazine top rails to fit the larger diameter WSM case body. But they didn't alter the feeding ramps or the angle needed to release the case correctly when leaving the mag. I saw this often in competitions when new shooters would show up with the new 7 WSM. But they have since solved this issue.

I think the whole "short mag" thing is an absolute gimmick for 9 1/2 out of every 10 average American sportsmen. Yes you gain some very marginal advantages, but was it worth the money, and is your average joe bubba going to be able to tell the difference? Nope.

Well, yes. The WSMs were introduced to sell more rifles and make more money. That's what corporations do. And that ain't necessarily bad. A healthy gun industry is good for us.

And your average bubba could get along fine with one 270, or 280, or 25/06, or 257Bob, or 308, or 7-08, or 7x57, or 30-30, or 243, or 6mm, etc. Etc. Etc.

At one point in time that could be said for nearly every round we talk about on here.

One could easily make the case that has been true since about 1963 or so. I use that date since the .300 Win.Mag debuted that year.

My son who is 16 has been shooting a Tikka T3 in 270wsm since he was 12, and that rifle is an elk killing machine. It has become the go to rifle for the house. He absolutely loves the rifle and the recoil is not unpleasant. I like the extra velocity you get, so it is worth it to us. Yes the ammo is more expensive, but he may shoot 10 rounds out of it in a year.

Weather permitting, I shoot 20-40 rounds a week out of my 270WSM, but they are reduced loads that are inexpensive to load, easy on the cases and barrel.

Federal case
Winchester magnum primer
Speer 100 grn HP - .015" off of the lands. No crimp.
25.5 grn AA5744
2040 fps

3/8" groups at 100 yards are typical with this load in my gun, a Winchester 1885 with barrel reduced to 24", 11 degree target crown.

7mm-08 or the .270 will fill that gap just fine. Or, go kinda old school and grab a 7x57 mauser or a 7.5x55 swiss. The 7x57 is a real killer for sure!

Could go back even further say in the 40s when Weatherby did most of his cartridges. The 30 Newton was around since 1913 a beltless case that holds about 2 grains less powder than the 300 Win Mag and the 300 H&H was around. Along with many others.

Yeah, that was kind of tongue-in-cheek since I happen to like the .300 Win Mag. Truth be told, by 1925 everything was pretty much covered with the 6.5x55, .270 Win., .300 H&H, .375 H&H, and several big bores in Africa.

Actually, since you mentioned it NP, I think everything needed for whitetails was out there as soon as the .30-30 caliber class cartridges (.30 Rem., .303 Savage, .32 Win., .35 Rem were developed). Blasphemy, I know, but the .30-06 and the cartridges derived from it are way more powerful than needed. Even the .30-40 and the .300 Savage have unnecessary power.

Sure. My point was we even had the modern "power" cartridges covered by then. Everything since has just been a little more speed/tweaking/gap filling.

It's eye opening to look at a date chart and see how early we had many of the great rounds still popular today. Conversely, I didn't know how relatively recently rounds like the .25-06, 7mm-08, and .416 Rem Mag came along.

Buy a "Cartridges of the World" and then you will know all this stuff.

Yup, have that among other sources.

OK I will get one.