I found a Tikka LH in .270 WSM that really interests me, but I already have a .270 Winchester and a 7MM Remington Mag. My thought process, based on an article from Ross Seyfried a few years ago, is that the .270 WSM might be able to do what both the other rifles will, and with the synthetic stock it should be much lighter if I make it back to the mountains one more time. It weighs 6# 3 oz unscoped...

Here is the question: is the .270 WSM that much superior to the standard .270, or is it just one more chambering that doesn't significantly improve on the old classic? I get a chrono'ed 3150 out of my BDL shooting Speer 130 Grand Slams, and I just wondered if there is enough difference between the 270 Short and the standard 270 to justify this.

Your thoughts, guys? I know I don't need an excuse to buy another rifle, but this one kind of tickles my fancy...

Personally I wouldn't spend the money. You already have two rifles that are essentially ballistic twins, so why spend the bucks on a third? Fact is the 7m/m offers more bullet weight choices than 270, so be happy with that and save money.

If you scrolled down a little bit you would of found this:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/606101243

I personally feel the 270 WSM is one of the finest rounds ever devised for shooting medium sized animals at longer ranges.

A 270 has been around since 1925.. and anything that has come out since has not done much to improve on it... and when it does, it burns a lot more more powder for little in gains...

A 270 bore on a 308 case makes more sense than any case bigger than the 270 Win, within that bore...or a 270 on a 57 mm case will do as well as the longer 1903 Springfield case the 270 was designed off of...

Here you go mate

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/606101243

Thanks for showing me the earlier thread. I apologize for asking something already answered. And the previous thread tells me I should save my money!

Thanks again, guys.

Doubless:
I think I'm gonna go against the comments of the other guys so far. I've got both, my .270 Win. is a pre-64 that I had worked over & put an H-S Precision stock on. I know, H-S doesn't make a stock for that model but my gunsmith was able to modify it. Anyway, that rifle, while very accurate and dependable for me, weighs in the neighborhood of 9 1/4 lbs. w/ scope. Too much for continued use as a backpacking rifle on a sheep or caribou hunt. As a result, I got a .270 WSM for several reasons.
1. Lighter for backpack hunting.
2. I'm a .27 cal. kinda guy. Nothing against the other cals. but.....
3. I wanted to get an idea as to what all of the "hoopla" was about regarding the WSM's.
I've had some "problems" with my WSM which I won't go into here but overall, I think if a guy is curious about them he should get one. Afterall, what does "need" have to do with it? I think that if you want it, can afford it, etc., you should go for it. Just my 2 cents.
Bear in Fairbanks

Do you need one? Probably not. You already have a 270 win. It is one hell of a round and the wsm probably won't do anything that you couldn't do with it. Having said that do you really need one? Hell yes you need one. It's a new gun for christ sakes. I also have both rifles and I am 100% content with both of them. I tend to use the wsm more often though simply because it shoots everything but remington under an inch and I could care less if I scratched the synthetic stock.

There are some trade-offs with either cartridge. But with the velocities you are getting with your .270 WCF, you won't find much ballistic advantage (maybe 100 fps) in the WSM.

That 100 fps won't make the difference in collecting a head of game, as I'm reminded by the arsenal of my professional hunter in Africa. He had a .243 Win and a .338 Win. He mostly used the .243 for anything he wanted to shoot because it was cheaper to shoot and more accurate. He kept the .338 around to rent to clients. Mostly, we gun nuts are way too picky about exactly what cartridge to use for exactly what game.

If (a little) shorter and lighter is important to you, then you can achieve that with a WSM. However, the trade off is magazine capacity (three vs. as many as five). Though not frequently, I've had ocassions when the difference in magazine capacity was the difference in a head of game taken and one that escaped wounded. I've also had times that a half-pound difference in the weight of the rifle might have been the difference (at least in terms of my willingness) in making it to the top of the ridge and seeing the deer on the other side.

You pay your money and you take your choice.

I have a 270 WSM and love it. That said as I've stated in prevous posts the recoil on this rifle is felt. This is coming from a guy who stoods a 300 WM and 12 gauge regulerly. It is the one disadvandge I've noted with the WSMs. It's just my thoughts but it may have something to do with sped up burning of powder (if you beleive in it). Just my thoughts.

the 270 wsm is a short 270 webby, not a short 270 win ..

if 200fps means something to you, then get the wsm

As far as I see, from here in UK, the sole advantage of the 270 WSM is that it enables the user to achieve true 270 WCF velocities in a short barrel "mountain" type rifle or in a carbine.

There's some that regard the 270 WCF as "overkill" in England! So playing "catch up" in the velocity stakes with the WSM doesn't really appeal to us.

In other words with an 18" or 20" barrel WSM the user can still equal the performance of a WCF in a 22" or 24" barrel rifle. At a price of course.

If it had enabled the 277 calibre user to load, or had been offered in, a 175 grain or 180 grain or maybe heavier bullet option to equal the 280 Remington, 7 x 64 or 7mm Remington Magnum then it might have been of more interest to us in Europe.

To let the "one gun" man load up to a heavier for wild boar and maybe elk (moose) when he or she required and match the 30-06 on "equal" terms in that weight range AND WHERE A CALIBRE UNDER 7mm FOR THOSE SPECIES IS LEGAL.

We don't need another "hot" 277 if it only fires a 130-150 grain "medicine". We use Roy Weatherby's fine rifles for that...but again 270 Weatherby Magnum is still a "cinderella" cartridge here.

But with the type of "hunting" we do and in the range of bullet weights it comes in it doesn't offer us here anything. The trade off, for us in Europe, of one less in the magazine against extra velocity that we don't need here hasn't made it worthwhile.