Just curious why someone would favor a short mag in this caliber?

Good question!

I really like the WSM. Since I hunt mostly deer in mixed terrain, either of them would do fine. I chose the WSM in a Tikka T3 Lite simply because I often find myself in a tree stand overlooking a field that can be as much as 500 meters across. Not that I'd ever shoot that far, I haven't yet, but every little bit counts. I also spend a lot of time walking through the woods, so weight is a premium.

It all really boils down to personal preference, as does much in the world of guns. Some say the WSM's don't feed too well, I find my Tikka with single-stacked magazine to feed perfectly smooth. Some say the WSM is more accurate due to a more consistent powder burn, that may be debatable but mine shoots well under MOA with factory ammo wile my .270 Win rifles are around MOA or slightly over after some trial and error with handloads. I'm also up on velocity by a fair bit. So for me it was the right choice, and I'm happy with my WSM rig.

About 200-250 FPS is one reason!

Fish,
Either rifle is most likely to be used on deer. Just how many fps does one really need??

quote:

Just how many fps does one really need??

Depends on how far you want to shoot In all truthfulness, I'll bet there aren't many of us that can shoot good enough to stretch the venerable 270 Winchester far enough beyond its limits to really need that extra 200 fps, but it does flatten out the trajectory slightly.

I ended up with my 270WSM a little by default. I had always wanted a M70 Featherweight in 270 Win., but after Winchester announced the demise of the M70, all I could find left on the shelf was a WSM. I went ahead and bought it, figuring that was probably as close as I was going to get. What I got was the most cosistantly accurate rifle I own. With factory ammo, it consistantly shoots .5 to .75 moa with several different brands and bullet styles. Prior to this rifle, I had never had the desire to buy a WSM, and in all honesty probably wouldn't buy another...but I have no plans of getting rid of the I've got.

bluefin--how many fps does one need??-- not as many as either .270 offers for sure. Plenty of deer taken with the old thuty-thuty and much lower velocity rounds. Heck, I shot one with my Henry Rifle in .45 Long Colt this year.
The regular .270 is my personal favorite caliber, I have over a dozen of them. I also have 5 .270 WSM's. The WSM's are a little faster, and as DGR shooter said, they are in fact very consistent. As far as 'real' reasons other than a little more speed, I have to be honest and say the shorter action doesn't mean spit to me, but it does to some. The shorter so therfore stiffer action lending itself to inherent accuracy--maybe a little something there....The lighter rifle stuff--BS to me...I will say that all of my WSM's have been very accurate more easily than my standard .270's, perhaps that has something to do with cartridge design and the action--I'm not smart enough to tell you--but it's supposed to. The cartridge 'theory' evolved from benchresters, sharper shoulders, and shorter, fatter powder columns are supposed to lend to accuracy, I actually believe that it does somewhat. I've got several short mags in .270 and 300 WSM, and they have all been very accurate, with little to no load development.

Having said all the above, I would be the ABSOLUTE LAST guy to talk you out of the classic .270 WCF!!!

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:
Just curious why someone would favor a short mag in this caliber?

The same reason they buy .270 WBY, they need a flatter trajectory 'cause they just don't know how to shoot.

'Aint nothin a 270 WBy or WSM can do that a 270 Win can't do, period!

quote:

About 200-250 FPS is one reason!

Good answer......to use a short action is another pretty relevant one too. Not everybody wants to only own long actions, I don't think you NEED the velocity of either to kill deer but most don't use velocity as the only factor to decide on a rifle. Cabin fever starting early this winter I see ........

Dave

You may crunch numbers on paper but in the field I doubt you could tell any difference in true terminal performance within (90% of all shots) 250 yds. I do prefer the short action.

The WSM kind of picks up where the standard Win leaves off.

Inside of 400 yards, the real differences won't be too substantial on game.

But, IMO, the simple fact is, that every foot per second counts and that WSM will shoot the same wt bullet faster and flatter. There is plenty of argument to go with the WSM.

The old standard I grew up with was to sight in 2" high at 100 yards. At 300, aim at the spine, and at 400, about 10-12" over the back. This has served me well over the years, but it is nice to keep the crosshair on the animal with the WSM at longer distances with less or no hold over, depending on where your zero is.

I own a few of both and really enjoy doing so I have found the 270WSM to be very consistant just like the gentleman mentioned a few post above.
I find threads of this verses that to be mildly annoying I guess if you only wanted to own and shoot only one rifle the rest of your life threads like this would be worthy of close study.
There are so many wonderful rounds available to us and so many overlap or duplicate others in performance that we could probably do without 95% of them, however that would be an extremly boring way to go.

Probably the biggest reason I (and I think perhaps most) of us like the 270 WSM is just because it's different.

Yes I do prefer a short action, a Kimber 8400 fits me better than a 8400 Long action. A couple hundred more fps is nice.

But the biggest thing is that I've had several 270 Win's and have enjoyed playing with another couple rifles in .277 caliber................DJ

I use the 270 Win for an antelope rifle because that is what I have...in addition to a 7mmRemMag that I would also use...but if I was to start over and have a dedicated goat rifle..it would be the 270 WSM probably in a Kimber 8400 wood stocked rig...with probably a 4.5-14 Leupold...

IIRC, Ross Seyfried built a "wildcat" 270 WSM several years ago, when Winchester sent him a 300 Short to to do some testing with. He took one look at the case and decided it needed to be necked down to hold a .277" bullet. The account was carried in Handloader, and if that 270 Short is half the round he made it sound like it was, it is one incredible round. I seem to remember him talking about driving 140-grain Winchester Fail Safes at >3300 FPs, and stating that he wasn't going to divulge group size(s) because the readers would call him a liar. He ended up taking the rifle to west Texas and shooting an aoudad with it...

I purchased a 300WSM from Mike Dettorre last year that he had listed here nothing wrong with the rifle but decided to have it rebarreled to a 270WSM and will look real good along side my 270. I haven't seen the spec on Bergers 270 bullets but hoping I can shoot them in the new rifle other wise I'll shoot them in the 270.

quote:

I often find myself in a tree stand overlooking a field that can be as much as 500 meters across. Not that I'd ever shoot that far, I haven't yet, but every little bit counts

I have taken a deer out this far with the .270 Win probably a lucky shot, but I sure do use this rifle a lot. When I lasered the distance after all was said and done I was a couple of yards on the other side of 560. Not a shot I care to repeat but the .270 Win will work that far out, but don't expect much bullet expansion.

Doubtless ----- My favourite bullet for my .270 WSM is an uncoated 140 grain failsafe bullet. It chronographs from 3260 up to 3312 fps, with the average closer to 3300. I was able to purchase 5 boxs of the bullets from Frankfort Arsenal a few months back for $4.95 per box, I consider myself lucky that it is also my most accurate bullet. This .270 WSM is one awesome round, I am sure shooters who are serious about trajectory will find it sooner or later. Good shooting.

I have both. The WSM burns more powder, kicks harder and shoots the same bullet but I have no reason to realy choose one or the other. As neither have ever let me down and I am fortunate they are both sub MOA guns. I love them both like a father loves two sons. They are different in some ways but they both share the same last name. Not bad.

"Just curious why someone would favor a short mag in this caliber?"

Because:
A: I don't need nor use no stinkin 30 cal anything.

B: If I need something larger than .277 cal., I have my .338 Mag., Thank you very much.

C: I've got both. My.270 Win is a pre-64 but weighs in the neighborhood of 9 lbs. My .270 WSM is about 7+ lbs. or so. You've obviously never hauled 50-60 lbs. of gear over alaskan tundra on an extended sheep hunt. Weight is
everything.

D. Because I wanted to take a look at what all the broohaha was about.

Are 4 reason enough? Bear in Fairbanks

Probably I'm traditionalist...
I prefer the good old .270. If I need more power I'll use a 7mm Remington Mag
Faina

Dont want to sound mean,but a 7mag doesnt have much on a .270. If you need more poop, get some sort of 300 mag. I have both and the difference is small.

Distance and power, The 270 win is a fine cartridge, but the old 270 wby is still the best. I can easily see the difference on deer size critters from 50 yards to 400. Is a 3006 more powerful than a 30-30 oh yeah. The wsm is still new to me. You have to shoot animals with both to really know otherwise it is just hot air.

For the first time in my life, I don't have a 30 cal of any kind. I have a 270 Featherweight and a 270 WSM with a Rocky Mountian Rifle Works barrel, a superbly accurate machine. I can shoot farther and flatter with the WSM, but since I grew up a few years ago, I have stopped shooting at any range over 300 years. Since I don't shoot that far any more, I am wondering why I have the 270 WSM. The 270 does all I need. Also, most of my shots over a 47 years of hunting have been at 100 to 200 yards, reason enough to give up on magnums.

I'd take a 270 WSM over a 270 Win every time. The WSM cartridge trumps the standard in every way.