+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.