.270 win or .270wsm....bought one....pics!

[cariboo_kid]

With your username, who would have thought a .277 bullet would seem too small?

 

[B.Ruddick]

the 308 and 223 came out along time after the .270

Thanks for that update The_Big_Mike, I saw an article not too long ago about the mentioning of the rifle manufacturers having to do a little more detail on the chamber tolerances of the 270 rifles they were building to compete with the 308 and 223 for inherent accuracy traits, but I obviously didn't realize that the 270 came out before the 308 and 223, well before my time. So the article must have been reflecting the 270's after the release of the 308 & 223. uhm?

Do you like long, slender legs on a woman or short, fat stubby ones?

That's why I went with a Weatherby, long slender legs and some ###y curves.

 

[BIGREDD]

OK, I'll bite



.270 Win (130 grain)
MV: 3,140
Drop at 300 (zeroed at 150): -8.9"
MPBR: 305 yards
Recoil: 16 ft/lbs

.270 WSM (130 grain)
MV: 3,285
Drop at 300 (zeroed at 150): -8.2"
MPBR: 320 yards
Recoil: 18.7 ft/lbs

So in exchange for burning 18% more powder and suffering a 17% increase in recoil over the .270 Win, you're getting less than 5% increase in velocity, less than 5% increase in MPBR and a reduction in drop @ 300 yards of less than an inch.

And as a third data point:

7mm Rem Mag (140 grain)
MV: 3175
Drop at 300 (zeroed at 150): -8.4"
MPBR: 310 yards
Recoil: 19.3 ft/lbs

...

Hows your ballistics program compare to "bench time" Bishopus.
Anybody can punch numbers into a ballistics program and use a formula to compare recoil. But this has very little to do with felt recoil
Do you know the difference between recoil energy , recoil velocity and FELT RECOIL?
Your load Data is only one load that does not accurately reflect the overall comparison... I could trot out numers that show a completely different picture.

Try using powder that was designed for the Short Mags like Retumbo or Mag-Pro and shoot a couple of hundred rounds over a Chrony then get back to me.

 

[Leeper]

Felt recoil. I've shot 3 270 WSMs and I thought the recoil was pretty snappy. Not a whole lot different than a WCF in the same weight rifle, but a bit more.
Performance. The performance difference is just what you would expect from 100fps.
The only real advantage to the wsm is that the loaded rifle is a bit lighter because the magazine won't hold as many! A 277 bullet at reasonable velocity does the pretty good job on big game and the 270 WSM will push the bullets at a reasonable velocity so it will kill big game animals. Just like the 270 Winchester. Any difference in power or trajectory would be unnoticable in the field. It certainly won't add 100 yards to your effective range. Regards, Bill.

 

[scott_r]

I shot the .270 and .270 wsm these past 3 years and really didnt find that the .270 wsm gave me any more of an edge. Crunching numbers on a ballistic program it does show a little bit but nothing that really going to make a huge difference.
Both are #1 whitetail cartridges when you want to long flat shooting cal. with mild recoil and good bullet selection.

 

[Bishopus]

Do you know the difference between recoil energy , recoil velocity and FELT RECOIL?

Yes. The first two are objective reality. The last is purely subjective, and has to do with lots of things--including stock design.

The .270 WSM burns more powder, which generates a greater rearward vector, which means greater recoil energy and greater recoil speed. This is just plain-old high school physics, there's no way around it.

Given identical stock design, the WSM will always have greater felt recoil.

But I agree, that given different stock designs, the better stock design will tend to have less felt recoil--even if the cartridge generates a higher recoil impulse.

 

[BIGREDD]

We are on the same page Bishopus....
I find that generally the .270WSM does not recoil as hard as you think it would... that said it definitely has a little more than a .270win but not even close to a .270WTBY.
The recoil velocity of the short mags falls outside of the norm that the formula would suggest... I am not going to get into the efficiency aspect of the short case. Too many people here already hate efficiency...

As far as effective range goes Bill,
I am shooting a Moly 140 grain Accubond over a Compressed load of Retumbo and getting 3200fps... My dead center hold for killing big game has definitely stretched over 100 yards from my best 140 grain load with a .270WIN. I hear they are making a .277 130 grain accubond now... maybe I can stretch that a little further?

 

[pharaoh2]

The other day, you said:

It has no more recoil than a standard .270 in rifles of the same weight and in many cases less recoil!

I find that generally the .270WSM does not recoil as hard as you think it would... that said it definitely has a little more than a .270win :

The original guy asked for advice on the two cartidges. Don't confuse him. Again, I've shot both, and yes, they do kick harder. Felt recoil, recoil velocity and recoil energy is one and the same. The rearward motion of a firearm caused by a projectile traveling at a high rate of speed, causes what you feel, hence felt recoil. Two rifles, of the same type will recoil the same, given the bullets are traveling the same velocity, and if the bullets are the same weight. Increase the speed of the bullets, and you increase recoil. A WSM will NEVER recoil less than a standard cartridge. I don't care if one uses less powder. Physics dictates, not opinions. And if a .270 weatherby fires a 130 grain bullet at the same velocity as a WSM, (In theory. I know the WBY is capable of a bit more velocity) it too will recoil the same, given the same rifle, in weight and design.

 

[boney]

I have shot both,the WSM (Browning BLR) and the 270Win(many different rifles, bolt, semi and pumps) and would say I cant tell much difference in regards of recoil,but I cant tell much difference in recoil between a model 70 in 7 Rem mag(160g) and a model 70 in 264Win mag,(140grain)Hell I have a model 88 in 308 that to me, kicks as hard as any of the above.
I still like the good ole 270Win better of the two in question but I'm kinda ole fashion like that.
.....And Yes,.... all these rifles were fired from a bench with a rest and sand bags,not one of these lead sled thingys

 

[todbartell]

Ive shot a T3 SS in 270wsm, and it is an obnoxious rifle to shoot, even with the Limbsaver pad. 150 grain Interlocks @ 3040 fps over 70 grains Retumbo. Accurate, flat shooting, but not something I find fun to shoot from the bench. This is more to do with the T3, than it is with the 270wsm. Its a hell of a little cartridge, but so is the 270 Win

 

[Gibbs505]

With your username, who would have thought a .277 bullet would seem too small?

I also use a 6.5 swede and a 303 BR. Along with a 300 mag and a couple of future project to replace the sold gibbs, ................. well I feel that a 270 is not going to be on the cards!

 

[BC Bigbore]

If I wanted a plastic & stainless rifle, I'd get it in .270WSM. If I wanted a blued & walnut rifle, I'd pick the .270 Winchester. Ballistically they are very similar with the WSM edging out the Win. in the velocity department. But the Win. version beats the pants off the WSM in the classic department. Skip 'em both and get a .280AI

 

[BIGREDD]

The other day, you said:





The original guy asked for advice on the two cartidges. Don't confuse him. Again, I've shot both, and yes, they do kick harder. Felt recoil, recoil velocity and recoil energy is one and the same. The rearward motion of a firearm caused by a projectile traveling at a high rate of speed, causes what you feel, hence felt recoil. Two rifles, of the same type will recoil the same, given the bullets are traveling the same velocity, and if the bullets are the same weight. Increase the speed of the bullets, and you increase recoil. A WSM will NEVER recoil less than a standard cartridge. I don't care if one uses less powder. Physics dictates, not opinions. And if a .270 weatherby fires a 130 grain bullet at the same velocity as a WSM, (In theory. I know the WBY is capable of a bit more velocity) it too will recoil the same, given the same rifle, in weight and design.

Your opinion is noted I agree that recoil and felt recoil are confusing... but they are not the same thing.
Your claim that physics dictate that WSM's will never have less recoil than a standard cartridge burning the same charge is simply not the whole story.
It is also physics that "cartridge shape" determines the burn rate to a degree, this is called "efficiency" I really hate to use that word but it is the truth. Fat Cartidges expose more of the powder charge to the primer and have wider and shorter powder column that burns more efficiently with less powder burning in the throat and barrel. You take a long narrow powder column of the same powder and it is not going to burn as efficiently. And sometimes this means powder still under ignition in the throat and barrel which can add recoil. That is why and how some rifles suffer throat errosion in the first place. None of these factors are built into your recoil program on your computer!
Bartell made a valid point with the T-3 comparison, in a super light rifle the .270WSM can be a mule (I put a M/B on mine!). But I have also shot all of the popular chamberings in T-3 rifles and they all kick inordinately hard.
I have compared the .20WSM and .270 in identical Browning A-bolts as well and with factory loads the difference is nominal. Depending on the ammo used either cartridge can feel like it has less recoil.
We confused more or less now?

 

[gitrdun]

Gawwd, if anyone is concerned about the felt recoil of a .270 or a .270WSM, the solution is simple. Weight down the gun or drop to a .243 IMHO anyways.
Felt recoil has never been an issue for me in a "hunting" rifle in a "hunting" situation. There's a well know little drug that your body produces called adrenaline which takes care of things. I'm not that big and probably not a whole lot tougher than most (well maybe), so cowboy up.

 

[blargon]

Gawwd, if anyone is concerned about the felt recoil of a .270 or a .270WSM, the solution is simple. Weight down the gun or drop to a .243 IMHO anyways.

AHH, now are we talking .243 win or .243 wssm ?

 

[Bishopus]

Your claim that physics dictate that WSM's will never have less recoil than a standard cartridge burning the same charge is simply not the whole story.

It actually is the whole story. There's no magic in case design that can get away from the fundamental physical science at work. An action creates an equal and opposite reaction. That's recoil. There's no spooky action at a distance, no relativity to consider--it's just boring old Newton.

It is also physics that "cartridge shape" determines the burn rate to a degree,

Not really, no it isn't. Wide powder columns may burn more _uniformly_, but they do not burn any faster or slower than narrow powder columns. Powder burn rate is a physical constant, based on the properties of the powder and the starting point of ignition (the primer).

this is called "efficiency"

No, it's not. 'Efficiency' means 'how much energy comes out (MV and ME) versus the amount of energy that went in (joules of chemical energy--the powder charge). Winchester marketing used this term to explain how the .300 WSM could produce identical velocities to the .300 Win Mag with less powder capacity. They used it correctly, and it's a fine (if slightly misleading) explanation for what's happening.

I really hate to use that word but it is the truth. Fat Cartidges expose more of the powder charge to the primer and have wider and shorter powder column that burns more efficiently with less powder burning in the throat and barrel.

This is totally untrue. All powders but particularly progressive powders (i.e. 'slow' or 'magnum' powders) do some burning in the barrel, and that's exactly what you want--you want the pressure spike to rise smoothly and evenly until the moment the projectile leaves the barrel. Even a .22 LR needs at least 12" of barrel to burn all the powder in its miniscule case. Again, the burn rate of powder depends entirely on the physical characteristics of the powder and the initial ignition, not on the case design.

You take a long narrow powder column of the same powder and it is not going to burn as efficiently.

It may burn less uniformly, but it will not burn any faster or slower, and it will not transform the chemical energy of the powder into bullet velocity any more efficiently. These things are simply not possible.

And sometimes this means powder still under ignition in the throat and barrel which can add recoil.

It doesn't matter where the powder burns, case or throat or barrel, it all creates energy which pushes the bullet out, and pushes back against your shoulder.

That is why and how some rifles suffer throat errosion in the first place.

This is true! Barrels wear out from hot gasses eroding away the rifling at the throat. Note that all cartridges expel hot gasses into the throat, even magical short fat ones.

None of these factors are built into your recoil program on your computer!

Yeah, wonder why that is....?

 

[gitrdun]

AHH, now are we talking .243 win or .243 wssm ?

sh1t disturber !.......

I also get the distinct impression that Bishopus is slightly more educated than a plumber

 

[todbartell]

the only 270wsm Ive shot was in a T3. In fact, the only T3 Ive shot has been a 270wsm. I do know that it kicks a hell of alot more than the 7saum I had which has identical ballistics. My 7saum was a laminated stock 700, and weighed about 3/4 pound more than a T3, but it kicked like a 30-06. I think the tupperware stock T3 are just plain not fun to shoot in anything similar to a WSM or magnum. The laminate or walnut versions might be normal

 

[RickF]

Here's a crazy thought. Which one? It doesn't matter!

Buy either one as they will both do the same job. Put a great scope on it, get it bedded and the trigger tuned, and shoot it! Put a thousand rounds a year through it, practicing from field positions at the ranges talked about so much on here.

The picking at microscopic nits that goes on here is incredible.

 

[Pat Brennan]

RickF

Here's a crazy thought. Which one? It doesn't matter!

Buy either one as they will both do the same job. Put a great scope on it, get it bedded and the trigger tuned, and shoot it! Put a thousand rounds a year through it, practicing from field positions at the ranges talked about so much on here.

The picking at microscopic nits that goes on here is incredible.

Now Rick, don't try to bring logic to these discussions. Geez, you ought to know better by now.