Which do you like better and why?

.270 Win, but I like it in 24" barrels. Seems to diminish the slight ballistic benefit of the WSM round. Feeding problems in some brands of rifle with the WSMs are also keeing me from running out to buy one. I'd hate to loose a wounded animal because the next round failed to feed properly and I wasted valuable seconds feeding it manually. I know it's a worst-case scenario, but the Winchester round has been a proven performer for a LONG time. Nothing like a 130gr. Partition right around 3200fps from a .270 Win.

plain of 270 The short mags are OK I guess, but they get their FPS's by increasing the pressure to 65,000 from 50-55000. If you did that to a 270 my bet is that it would outclass the short mag. I guess I'm just to old fashioned to like that kind of operating pressures

270 WIn... like Mickey pointed out, in barrels of equal length the 270 is 100 to 150 fps behind the WSM but feeds better, holds more rounds and, if 3,200 fps with a 130 won't get the job done, another 150 fps won't either. Did I mention increased muzzle blast and recoil as well as limited factroy ammo availability?

The WSM's will NEVER, EVER feed as well as the 30-06 based cartridges.

.270 Winchester.....I don't believe the WSM offers anything usable over the .270 Win.

Key word here is usable

I don't own either, but I got to watch shooters with each in a class last week. The WSM rifle (semi-custom by the way) had some feeding issues, and also demonstrated a slam-fire.

jim

I may be the minority, but I prefer my .270WSM to the standard .270. I like the short action and the shorter case, and my Model 70 Super Shadow has proven to be very accurate. Granted the performance difference is slight, particularly in same barrel length, but the edge still goes to the short mag. Which makes sense, given its' greater case capacity. There is nothing wrong with a .270 Winchester, my personal preference is for the short magnum. Of course, being a cheapskate, if I didn't handload, I would probably have a standard .270 Win instead.

Both are excellent, but I might lean towards the 270 WSM just because it's newer and a little more interesting to me. I have rifles in both that I really like.
Loading the same bullets and the same powders and in the same length barrels I've been able to get 150 to 200 fps more velocity out of the 270 WSM. 3200fps with a 130gr bullet with most powders is a little faster than a 270 Win is supposed to go, even in a 24" barrel. A 270 WSM will easily exceed this.
Yes the 270 Win theoretically will feed smoother than the WSM but a properly tuned WSM will feed smooth as glass also. The extra 150 to 200 fps is probably as theoretically usefull as the feeding difference.
All in all just buy a rifle that you really like in either round and it's hard to go wrong...............DJ

Unless you just absolutely, positively, gotta have a "short" action, then the 70 year-old .270 Winchester is likely the better choice.

A functional WSM magazine holds 2 rounds, and can be made to hold 3 rounds at the risk of exacerbating the feeding problems previously mentioned. Many .270 magazines will hold 5 rounds, making a 6-shooter with one up the pipe.

The difference in magazine capacity, combined with cost and availability of ammunition, mitigates in favor of the good old .270 Win. But if saving 3/4 of an inch off of the overall length of the gun and perhaps 3 or 4 ounces of weight is critically important, then the WSM makes that possible.

quote:

and perhaps 3 or 4 ounces of weight is critically important, then the WSM makes that possible.

Actually that favors the .270 win since it's available in a featherweight model and the WSM is not.

From what I have seen of Winchester, the WSM barrels are fairly heavy profile. I checked out a LH "featherweight" in .270 WSM and that sucker was heavy. Personally, I think all the WSM rounds are just a brainfart. I for one do not care about the rifle being 3/4" longer, and would take a .270 Winchester any day of the week over the .270 WSM. It is just my opinion that once you get over about 3100 fps, the additional velocity doesn't mean much.

quote:

The WSM's will NEVER, EVER feed as well as the 30-06 based cartridges.

Brad, are you sure?

Chuck

I'm sure, even if Brad has second thoughts.

Gentlemen ----- I would never knock the old .270 Winchester, I have shot dozens, loaded thousands of rounds for it, and shot hundreds of rounds with it. However if you fellows that knock the WSM would come shoot my Model 70 Winchester you would be amazed indeed. ----- All shooting is from 100 yards. A 130 grain North Fork bullet at an three shot average of 3455 fps and one inch accuracy. That was the fastest group for that bullet, this past weekend three groups averaged 3405 fps. ----- A 140 grain Barnes TSX at three shot average of 3350 fps and .5 accuracy. ----- A 150 grain North Fork at 3265 fps for three shot group and .5 accuracy. No feed problems whatsoever. My scope is a 4.5 X 14 Ziess Conquest. No .270 Winchester can do that speed wise, now speed is not everything, but ballistics are paramount to some folks. Good shooting.

If by chance Brad and Mike ever have doubts, I'll help out their memory...grins

MD

I don't own the WSM version, but do have the standard .270, and absolutely love it... But I am going to paraphrase a guy whose writings I like a lot. He goes by the name of Ross Seyfried. (Some of you might have heard of him...)
Back when the 300 WSM came out, he saw the case and had a reamer cut to build the .270 WSM in a custom gun. He then worked up loads, and took the rifle on an Aoudad hunt out in West Texas.
The article he wrote about his custom .270 WSM (before Winchester offered it) in a copy of either Rifle or Handloader, stated that he was getting 3400 out of 140-grain Fail Safes, IIRC, and that his groups were so small he wasn't going to give them in print, because people would accuse him of being a liar.
He also stated that in his opinion, the .270 WSM, loaded with Fail Safes or comparable, would take anything on the North American Continent...
My .270 won't do that. It'll come close, but it would fail on ol' Griz, I suspect, no matter which bullet it was throwing.

I've used a standard 270 since 71' with no complaints. When I lived in Alaska, I killed everything they had to offer except grizzly, and with those hated Rem Core-Lokts! I suspect a fellow could do the same thing with a WSM. I read somewhere that several years ago the then world record polar bear was taken with a 270. The standard 270 is a proven performer and I suspect the 270 WSM will be as well.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

and perhaps 3 or 4 ounces of weight is critically important, then the WSM makes that possible.

Actually that favors the .270 win since it's available in a featherweight model and the WSM is not.

Sorry Vapodog but you've forgotten three of the best WSM rifles. In the Winchester M-70 Featherweight the 270 WSM has the same listed nominal weight at the 270 Win version, 7lbs 4oz.. Both the Sako Finnlite and Kimber 8400 weigh at least a pound less than the Winchester "Featherweight".
And by the way the Finnlite Mag holds 4 rounds down 1 up for 5rd total, Kimber 8400's hold 3 down 1 up. If you need more than 4 rounds for non-dangerous game you don't need a different rifle, you need to practice your shooting!...... .......DJ

Both are great rounds!! I recently sold my .270 Win after working up some loads for my Savage .270 WSM. I am getting 3150 fps and .25 MOA accuracy with the WSM. The best I could ever get out of my .270 Win with any accuracy was 2850 fps with a 140. I'll take the ballistic advantage, thank you very much !!

if this was any sanity in the gun manufacturers crystal balls and our society was not hung up on Magnumitis....

The real choice would be, 270 Win or 270 x 57, or 270/08....

A 270 on a 7 x 57 case or a 308 case, doesn't give up much velocity at all to the 270 Winchester....

But short mag cases are trendy and would be selling better than a 308 or 7x57 case would.....
But the latter two are a lot more efficient and don't give up much to the first two...

I wonder what the next trendy thing will be when this phase gets old?

cheers
seafire

I'd like to know what pressures, Phurley is running that 270wsm to get 3265fps/150gn NF bullet. Or the guy DUBLESS mentions that was getting 3400fps 140 FS.
Looking at the Win reload site:
270wsm 140fs 3020. 56,300
270wsm 150sp 3100. 61,900
7mmWsm 140fs 3220. 63,900

Looking at the 7mmWSM 140 FS 63,900.,what would the 270wsm 140fs pressures be doing with the velocity of 3400!

quote:

In the Winchester M-70 Featherweight the 270 WSM has the same listed nominal weight at the 270 Win version, 7lbs 4oz.

Problem is DJ, that's BS... the "real" featherweight is approx 8 oz's less... it's the M70 "fwt" barrel contour that makes it a featherweight not that french whorehouse stock design. The WSM has a standard "magnum" barrel contour, same used on the 338 WM.

Woodjack ----- I have never exceeded the max load listed in any of the manuals. With some of the faster loads I could feel the indentation of the firing pin in the primer by rubbing my finger across the fired primer, and an occasional shiny spot on the case. Not the pronounced shiny spot, but slight. When I get that I go no further. I have had only one heavy bolt lift, and it was not real heavy. ----- Once again, speed is not everything, but when the accuracy is acceptable to me, I like all I can get. I do not use a strain gauge, but I have chronographed all loads thus far. Good shooting.

Point to ponder, I have read with interest some posts about maximizing penetration.

A 375 H&H should be loaded to 2400fps for best penetration on Cape buffalo.

There is also a custom S. African gun maker that claims speed impedes penetration and developed some low velocity rounds,Sabi I believe, in different calibers for plains game hunting.

So in my opinion, the only benefit for higher velocity is flatter trajectory and the explosive smack down effect of bullets violently expanding on deer/antelope type game.
If you use a controlled expansion type bullet, then you are left with a little flatter trajectory benefit.

So if you are looking for penetration in a 277 caliber, you would be better off with a 160 gr Nosler Partition at 2400-2500fps. A WSM will push it faster.

In my observation a very high SD bullet at moderate speeds does the job kind of like a draft horse, a little slower but very effective and a high speed lower SD bullet tends make a pretty impressive splash, like a fancy Arabian horse.

I have noticed the difference in my 270 Win between 130 gr Nosler BT's, to 130-140 grain Hornady SP, to controlled expansion bullets like Barnes and Partition and their effect on deer sized animals.

Two schools of thought are fast and explosive or slow and methodical. Same as push feed rifles vs controlled round feed.

The WSM does have a edge in speed, for a little flatter trajectory and "smack down effect".
The speed will also make long shots easier.

Does it make a difference? Only the individual can decide what floats their boat.

I personally like the original. I have a pretty good history with the 270 Win. The cartridge has never let me down, just the nut pulling the trigger.

I am not magnum/belted fan, the standard cartridges have been working for an awful long time at the distances I shoot for hunting.

If you want to do some long distance hunting/shooting, the extra velocity may help.
That issue opens up a whole nother can of worms.

As my moniker suggests. I am a hunter, not a shooter. If I can't get to within 300 yards (which is a pretty long shot), I am not doing my job as a hunter.

I have a 270 WSM but I don't see any real world advantage over the 270 win.
Which do you find easier to load for?

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

quote:

In the Winchester M-70 Featherweight the 270 WSM has the same listed nominal weight at the 270 Win version, 7lbs 4oz.

Problem is DJ, that's BS... the "real" featherweight is approx 8 oz's less... it's the M70 "fwt" barrel contour that makes it a featherweight not that french whorehouse stock design. The WSM has a standard "magnum" barrel contour, same used on the 338 WM.

Brad, before you start calling BS you really ought to do some research. Here is a link to the Winchester Factory page where the exact figures I quoted are listed:

http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/detail.a...type_id=004&cat=001C

The short action calibers are listed at 6lbs 8oz the Long actions like the 270 and the WSM actions are listed at 7lbs 4oz..
Obviously not every rifle is going to weigh exactly the same due to the differences in wood density etc.. Even in stainless guns there is going to be variance in weight between barrels of the same external contour the larger bore diameters weighing less. I do prefer the true featherweight contour of the 308 length featherweights but the fat WSM's don't leave enough wall thickness to use them.
So in conclusion I quoted exact figures listed by the factory but used "nominal" to account for individual variances. If you want to call BS on something it would really be better if you knew what you were talking about...............DJ

quote:

270 Winchester

Im sorry im confused which one?

Here we go again



ZM

.270 Win is my favorite. I do not handle the short actions very well. I like the longer actions and feel the gun companies are selling us a bill of goods we do not need.

quote:

if this was any sanity in the gun manufacturers crystal balls and our society was not hung up on Magnumitis....

The real choice would be, 270 Win or 270 x 57, or 270/08....

A 270 on a 7 x 57 case or a 308 case, doesn't give up much velocity at all to the 270 Winchester....

But short mag cases are trendy and would be selling better than a 308 or 7x57 case would.....
But the latter two are a lot more efficient and don't give up much to the first two...

I wonder what the next trendy thing will be when this phase gets old?

I have to agree with you Seafire. I really would of rather had a .270 Redding than my .270WSM, but then I don't think I could of had one built that could consistently group under 3/4 of an inch at 100 yards and cost under $400. Not to mention the potential of approaching 7mm Remington Magnum ballistics (150 gr bullet at 3150 fps). The beauty of the .270WSM is that it can be loaded down to 7mm-08 ballistics or cranked up to near .270 Weatherby levels, all with decent accuracy. As to firepower concerns, how often do you have the need to fire 5 or 6 rapid shots at a target? Maybe those people should practice slow fire more, then they might only need one or two.

If you want a .270, then get the .270 Win. If you just HAVE to get a WSM, get a 300 WSM. Course, then you have all the other .30 cal chamberings to compete with, so really, what's the point?

The .270 Win will do anything you need a .277 bullet to do. Anything else is just a novelty.

I prefer the WSM version in .270 bore over the smaller cartdrige. The thing is that I always plan to bag the game with the first shot. The WSM does not kick too much at all for precision aiming and it will shoot a heavier bullet at higher velocities than the old 270.

As to feeding my M70 will feed the 7mm WSM very well. My 270 WSM chambered Kimber feeds in a reliable manner but it does have a steep feed ramp and the motion is somewhat abrupt.

In general the 270 is supposed to be a long range cartridge and the WSM version is longer ranged than the 270 Win. Whats wrong with that? Your old 270 is really good, it always was but the 270 WSM is a little better.

What have you done with your .270wsm in the field, that the .270 win has not already done many times over?

DJ... first, I'm not calling BS on you, I'm calling it on the USRAC catalog. Second, you're qouting that catalog which is erroneous. I've owned BOTH ACTUAL weapons and have a digital scale... the difference IS as I've stated. The 270 WSM "Fwt" has a magnum contour while the 270 Win Fwt has the fwt contour... the weight difference is substantial and, actually, closer to 10 oz's given the 270 wsm has a 24" barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
What have you done with your .270wsm in the field, that the .270 win has not already done many times over?

Rifle bullets slow down really fast in the air and gravity pulls them down too quick also. Most are not very good anymore at just a few hundred yards while one can see for miles where its clear. Thus where distances are long the same bullet going faster is better. This is why the WSM will always be better than any smaller cartridge.

As to the discussion above on the weight of a rifle with a 270 Win in it or a WSM I would think that a Featherweight barrel would reduce the weight a little more than a short action. Whatever difference that makes would not be much. What really happens however is that you have to start somewhere and for factory guns the Kimber WSM's in the Montana version weigh only 6.3 lbs! Thats the state of the art for me. M70 Featherweights, even in 270 Win weigh about 3/4 of a pound more and are longer.

As to personal experiance I have shot a lot of game that ran and fell out of sight. Sometimes they were not far away at all yet it seemed to take forever to find them. There are many other reasons that I want the animal hit as hard as possible as I believe that more power results in a quicker more humane kill. You may not believe that but I am postitive about it.

Brad, Well I'll take actual measurements over catalog data any day - point conceded. I guess you know more about what you were talking about than did the Winchester guy who wrote the catalog.
I try and source whatever I type out on these forums pretty carefully and never make stuff up so maybe I'm a little over-sensitive about calling BS on me. I apologize if my reply was too rude.
And I do agree with you that the Winchester WSM isn't a true "featherweight". That's why Ron and I bought Kimbers!............DJ

DJ, I apologize too... there's no question if I'd taken my time carefully writing my initial post you wouldn't have taken it peronally and I can see how you would have. I honestly was referring to the Winchester catalog, not you! Over the years I've noticed Winchester has a bad habit of playing fast and loose with catalog figures, sepecially weights!

Looking forward to the Kimber LA's?

Brad

Jarrod,
To answer your original question, I like the 270 Win. Because that's what my Dad has shot for over 40 years. I bought one because it seemed like common sense to own the same rifle as my Dad. It was more economical for reloading, same ammo on hunting trips etc. I never found a good enough reason to change. It does a splendid job on deer/antelope and even elk. Are there other cartridges that wuill do the job? You bet, some more powerful, some less powerful.

Since you already have a 270 WSM, I wouldn't go out and buy a 270 Win. That is unless you don't like the rifle.

I have stated a couple times before that people should find the rifle that they like, one that feels good in their hands, points naturally for them.

Doesn't matter if it's a PF or CRF, wood or synthetic, blue or stainless. American or European. Then pick a cartridge that it is chambered in and go hunting/shooting.

I would much rather have a gun that is comfortable to use in a "less desirable?" cartridge than to have the "perfect cartridge" in a boat anchor of a gun.

We are lucky in this country to have such a huge selection of firearms to pick from. Anyone should be able to find one that feels good. be it Browning, Remington, Wichester, Kimber, or even a semi-custom, or custom.

I feel that advertising drives too many people to go out and buy the next great gun or cartridge. So people get their mind set on the new Kimber, or the new WSM cartridges, etc. I feel this sets them up for being a little disgruntled after the newness wears off. Then the next great thing comes along. Or they read in some forum that 338 super smacker is better than the old standby, or their rifle is not liked by someone else. Or someone lost a critter with the cartridge they shoot.

Is the 270 WSM better? On paper yes. In real hunting situations? Probable only about 1% of the time. At a 100 yard range punching paper? absolutely not!!

There is a funny thing I noticed. When people compare a whatever-08 cartridge to a whatever-06 cartridge it's to say that the 08 cartidge is just as fast as the 06 with less powder because it is a more efficiant shape. The 06 people say a larger powder capacity will always go faster, especially with heavier bullets.
This gets even worse when people start into talking about the magnums, espicially the 7 Rem Mag. ie. "I know a guy with a 7 rem mag that only gets the same velocity as an 280." There will also be men who will always say their 7-08 gets the same velocity as a 280. So I guess that a 7-08 delivers the same speeds and energy as a 7 Rem mag.
If you compared a "fast" 7-08 to a "slow" 7 rem mag their velocity will be close. But I would be willing to say a standard velocity 7 remmag will beat a regular 7-08.
The smaller cartridges do seem to push a bullet around more effciantly. But a bigger engine room will win if all factors are equal, correct powder, not going over pressures, same quality barrel, ect. But a shorter smaller cartridge will be more efficiant.
In the case of a 270 WSM to a 270 people tend to forget what they say about an 308 case being more efficiant because of being more efficiant cartridge because there is no such thing. They will say a 270 ( which has less powder space) will match WSM in speed though. There is a lot of hate for the shortmags, I guess because they are the new fangled shiny object of the moment. It's true most people don't need more than a 308 to hunt whitetail but what a boring world that would be.
For me the 270 WSM does produce more velocity, especially in the heavier bullet weights. It fills a nitch between a standard 270 and the weatherby 270 in a shorter package. In a proper rifle such as the Kimber it is a lighter, handier gun than a 270 can be. (Winchester needs to make differnt countour barrel for the FW in a shortmag.) Feeding is not a problem if the action is made correctly. And if the animal isn't down in a 3+1 bullet arrangement you really don't need that next shot. I guess you can even say that with 2+1 bullet arrangement.
A 270 WSM just offers that little extra energy and insurance that the animal will go down quickly. Especially if that is an animal larger than a whitetail deer. There is absolutly nothing wrong with a standard 270, but the WSM just has a little more without a lot of extra recoil. In a proper package the 270 WSM are an extremely efficiant rifle.
I get tired of people bashing something new. Your right to say we have all the cartridges we need but shooting wouldn't be nearly as fun if new cartidges didn't come out. It's advancing ballistics and rifle technology so what is the harm in that? As I stated before the 270 WSM do fill a nitch, to a lesser extent so does the 300 WSM. It's not for everyone but don't hate it if it's not for you.
I'll get off my soapbox now.