270 win vs. 270 wsm

So today I did some testing with re-26…the velocity increase was there ..but still have to find an accuracy node in the higher end. Started to see pressure signs ..I compared the 3 brass buddy shot from his browning bar in 270 wsm…no signs …me now that I’m at 3000…3050 fps I’m starting to see pressure signs… so what gives I know the ammo company’s won’t tell you what powder they use …but bloody hell which way and what can I do or try
Anyone have an idea
 
davide montini said:
So today I did some testing with re-26…the velocity increase was there ..but still have to find an accuracy node in the higher end. Started to see pressure signs ..I compared the 3 brass buddy shot from his browning bar in 270 wsm…no signs …me now that I’m at 3000…3050 fps I’m starting to see pressure signs… so what gives I know the ammo company’s won’t tell you what powder they use …but bloody hell which way and what can I do or try
Anyone have an idea
Click to expand...
MagPro for me seems to work. Up to about 3120 FPS 26" barrel and 150grn ABLR's
RL26 is serious pixie dust now. Don't waste it if it's not working. Word is we won't be seeing RL26 again for the foreseeable future due to the loss of Alliant's main nitrocellulose provider and current needs in Europe.
 
I'm very biased to the 270win. I've taken sheep, deer, moose, elk and bear with mine using loads with 129LRX, 140 NAB and a 150NP. With the right powders, I am able to get a 140NAB near 3200fps, safely. That's WSM country! And you've likely got more easily available factory ammo if needed.
 
Mogulrider said:
Let's see. $40 bucks a box or $120 a box hmmm
Click to expand...
I have had both the 270 Win and the 270 WSM, sold them both, but I prefer the 270 Win.

In all fairness, your ammo cost comparison is skewed, I'll explain. If you had compared the same ammo manufacturer and a similar bullet construction, your comparison would have been fair.

Now I agree the 270 WSM is going to be more expensive, but not by $80.00 per box!.....:) LOL

If you had compared a box of 270 Win in the Hornady WT line-up, and a box of 270 WSM in the same Hornady WT ammo, the cost difference would have been about $ 40.00 per box difference. Which is still a lot indeed.....:)

Either way, I like the 270 Win. The 270 WSM heats up way too fast when target shooting in the summer. It always seem to take forever to cool down as well.

She's 270 Winchester for my vote and pick......:)
 
Ive had both and kept the 270 win. Crazy accurate out of my browning xbolt and very easy to buy good ammo for. Easy to reload for as well. Capable of hunting all game of north america. I owned every hot new caliber on the market and still have many. When I need a cartridge to trust and shoot well it’s the 270 win
 
1899 said:
With my .270 Win I get a hair under 3000 fps out of a 22" barrel with RL26 or MRP and 150gr Partitions. Seems to work well enough.
Click to expand...
With the longer barrel (27") and lighter bullet, a handloader can achieve the best of both worlds. The rifle achieved 3,400 fps however, pressure was an issue to back-off.
 

Attachments

  • cAtccQA.jpeg
    cAtccQA.jpeg
    106 KB · Views: 17
South Pender said:
A few points here.

1. Feeding problems. Has anyone had feeding problems with the short and sharply-shouldered (35°) .270 WSM? This has been suggested as an issue in some articles I've read. The longer and more sloping .270 Win. case will always feed and chamber reliably.

2. Magazine capacity. Most .270 Win. rifles carry 4 or 5 cartridges in their magazine. The .270 WSMs I've read about can carry only 3 with the much fatter case. To me this isn't much of an issue at all, but to some it might be.

3. With some of the newer double-based high-performance powders (like Alliant Re26), 3200 fps is easily attainable with a 130-gr. bullet in the .270 Win. having a 24" barrel, and 3000 fps with the 150-gr. bullet, all with safe pressures of around 60,000 psi. This level of performance reduces the usually-reported velocity/trajectory differences a little between the two cartridges.
Click to expand...

I have a model 70 in 300wsm and it feeds beautifully - just as well as my 30-06. I've heard of these problems though in other rifles. I know that Tikkas and Sakos feed very smoothly ans reliably in the short mags too.

Barrel length and bullet selection are issues to be considered as well.

Mag capacity is a minus for the short mags, but how many rounds do you really need in there at once? If you can't get the job done with 3, then there's a different kind of problem.

You're right though, the overall shape of a 270win, 30-06, etc. make feeding very reliable. Depends on the rifle I guess.
 
track said:
With the longer barrel (27") and lighter bullet, a handloader can achieve the best of both worlds. The rifle achieved 3,400 fps however, pressure was an issue to back-off.
Click to expand...
That is spicy! The old Barnes manual had some loads in it that were quite warm. I used it to push a 130gr X at almost 3200 with RL22 out of a Remington Mountain rifle. I also "worked up" a load with the same powder and 140gr Hornady Interlock at just about 3100. This is going back almost 28 years and I have learned a lot since then. I am not under any delusions that those loads met SAAMI spec.

Keep in mind that I didn't have a rangefinder back in those days (did anyone?) and velocity along with flat trajectories were very appealing to me. I also used a .257 Wby with 75gr X bullets at just under 4000 fps. Both of those loads worked amazingly well on deer.

These days we have range finders and I have more experience judging distances. But more importantly, I know and acknowledge my own limitations. There were years when I shot 300-400 rounds/year out of my main hunting rifle. I don't do that any more. And because I don't, I accept that I need to be extra cautious and considerate of my own limitations. In practical terms that means I don't shoot past 400 yards - which contrary to what many people say these days is actually quite a long shot. The simple reality of the matter is that a .270 Win or .30-06 fits the bill perfectly and I no longer feel the need to chase every last foot per second, try to achieve the same performance using 3/10 of a grain less powder out of a more efficient round or whatever.

I suspect the .270 Winchester is still around because it works well and gets the job done, regardless of the conversations on forums. Hust look what has, for all practical purposes, come and gone in the last 25 years or so - .243 WSSM, .25 WSSM, 7mm WSM, .300 Ruger Compact, .338 Ruger Compact, 7mm SAUM, 300 SAUM etc. They were all the "next best thing", the "new and modern chambering".

Some people still use those cartridges and that is fine. Playing around with with stuff is fun and a fine hobby. At the end of the day, if I can't get it done with a .270 Win, then the .270 WSM is not the solution to my problem. But hey, don't take that as a put down on you if you like the .270 WSM - just load up, practice and go have some fun!
 
track said:
With the longer barrel (27") and lighter bullet, a handloader can achieve the best of both worlds. The rifle achieved 3,400 fps however, pressure was an issue to back-off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like the 130gr is the sweet spot for 270win. If I wanted to shoot heavier, higher BC stuff I'd go with a 6.5 or 7mm. A 130gr 277cal bullet going 3000+fps just bloody works - I like the Hornady interbond, leaves blood trails a blind man could follow (not that much trailing has been required in my experience). Nothing wrong with going up to a 140 or 150 if you want, but with the availability of premium bullets these days you can get the same sort of on-game performance with a good 130gr without sacrificing velocity.

1899 said:
I suspect the .270 Winchester is still around because it works well and gets the job done, regardless of the conversations on forums.
Click to expand...

I agree. It doesn't shoot high BC bullets, it doesn't use a short-and-fat case, it doesn't fit a short action, and it doesn't use metric nomenclature, but despite all those "shortcomings" those who use them on game know that it just plain works.
 
1899 said:
That is spicy! The old Barnes manual had some loads in it that were quite warm. I used it to push a 130gr X at almost 3200 with RL22 out of a Remington Mountain rifle. I also "worked up" a load with the same powder and 140gr Hornady Interlock at just about 3100. This is going back almost 28 years and I have learned a lot since then. I am not under any delusions that those loads met SAAMI spec.

Keep in mind that I didn't have a rangefinder back in those days (did anyone?) and velocity along with flat trajectories were very appealing to me. I also used a .257 Wby with 75gr X bullets at just under 4000 fps. Both of those loads worked amazingly well on deer.

These days we have range finders and I have more experience judging distances. But more importantly, I know and acknowledge my own limitations. There were years when I shot 300-400 rounds/year out of my main hunting rifle. I don't do that any more. And because I don't, I accept that I need to be extra cautious and considerate of my own limitations. In practical terms that means I don't shoot past 400 yards - which contrary to what many people say these days is actually quite a long shot. The simple reality of the matter is that a .270 Win or .30-06 fits the bill perfectly and I no longer feel the need to chase every last foot per second, try to achieve the same performance using 3/10 of a grain less powder out of a more efficient round or whatever.

I suspect the .270 Winchester is still around because it works well and gets the job done, regardless of the conversations on forums. Hust look what has, for all practical purposes, come and gone in the last 25 years or so - .243 WSSM, .25 WSSM, 7mm WSM, .300 Ruger Compact, .338 Ruger Compact, 7mm SAUM, 300 SAUM etc. They were all the "next best thing", the "new and modern chambering".

Some people still use those cartridges and that is fine. Playing around with with stuff is fun and a fine hobby. At the end of the day, if I can't get it done with a .270 Win, then the .270 WSM is not the solution to my problem. But hey, don't take that as a put down on you if you like the .270 WSM - just load up, practice and go have some fun!
Click to expand...
I don't shoot those velocities anymore, I reduced the load to exactly 60.0 grains, it still achieves 3,317 fps without pressure signs. I don't have a go-to rifle, I hunt with all kinds of firearms and cartridges, when persuing big game. I love velociety however, accuracy comes first. Last year I hunted with my 30-06, handloaded with 125 gain Nosler Accubond. Velocity averaged 3,301 fps and accuracy is always .50" or less at 100 yards.

This year, 2025, I may use my Ruger #1 in the 6mm Remington for deer. Handloading will commence this month and I wish for the rifle to achieve .50" accuracy and 3,275 fps or greater, with a 100 grain Nosler Partition.

The antelope in my avatar, along with a big 400 pound mule deer buck was killed with my 240 Weatherby, a custom Winchester Model 70 CRF, with a 27" barrel. It shoots .50" all day, sometimes .25". Velocity is over 3,600 fps using the 90 grain Nosler Accubond.

Note that the 270 Win. and the 240 Wby. equally love Alliant Reloder #26.
 
The long action short action debate goes out the window with the wsm, you need a beefier magazine and action to house the short fat cartridges. My kimber 84L is lighter and more slender than my kimber 8400. The 270 has an advantage of being chambered in an 84L or a remington mountain rifle if that's what you're into. If velocity means everything go with the wsm, if 3100+fps with a 130 gr bullet is enough, go 270.
 
Thunderhog said:
I have had both the 270 Win and the 270 WSM, sold them both, but I prefer the 270 Win.

In all fairness, your ammo cost comparison is skewed, I'll explain. If you had compared the same ammo manufacturer and a similar bullet construction, your comparison would have been fair.

Now I agree the 270 WSM is going to be more expensive, but not by $80.00 per box!.....:) LOL

If you had compared a box of 270 Win in the Hornady WT line-up, and a box of 270 WSM in the same Hornady WT ammo, the cost difference would have been about $ 40.00 per box difference. Which is still a lot indeed.....:)

Either way, I like the 270 Win. The 270 WSM heats up way too fast when target shooting in the summer. It always seem to take forever to cool down as well.

She's 270 Winchester for my vote and pick......:)
Click to expand...
There is no inventory in those 270WSM according to Arsenalforce.
Thus, if you didn't handload you would be forced to buy the Nosler. Thus, the comparison has lots of validity due to existing inventory.
270 is everywhere.
270WSM is not.
 
Canuck65 said:
I have a model 70 in 300wsm and it feeds beautifully - just as well as my 30-06. I've heard of these problems though in other rifles. I know that Tikkas and Sakos feed very smoothly ans reliably in the short mags too.

Barrel length and bullet selection are issues to be considered as well.

Mag capacity is a minus for the short mags, but how many rounds do you really need in there at once? If you can't get the job done with 3, then there's a different kind of problem.

You're right though, the overall shape of a 270win, 30-06, etc. make feeding very reliable. Depends on the rifle I guess.
Click to expand...
Agree with this, I have had a Tikka in 270wsm and it feed perfect and currently have a M70 EW in 270wsm and feeds smooth as butter.
 
There was a time (and sometimes still is) when it was stated that all the WSM / WSSM cartridges were problematic to feed or eject. I totally disagree with this statement and the tale has survived and is touted to this day. I have one of each in two different rifle companies and have never experienced a feed or extraction issue. One must rack the bolt and not baby it. And besides, if that where the case we wouldn't see so many newly developed short fat cases in the more recently developed cartridges - that have hit the market. What kills the newer cartridges comes down to the availability of loaded ammo and/or cases for re-loadfing; and sometimes the production of rifles themselves. The powders, primers and bullets are out there.
 
two ton tony said:
The wsm just doesn't offer much over the wcf. A little velocity, more difficult cycling and more expensive brass
Click to expand...
It’s not like you’re going to use the brass just once or something. I haven’t noticed one bit of cycling issues with my WSMs. I can’t get 3400 fps out of my 270 Wins, its not there to get. Heck, my 270 WSM gives my 270 Weatherbys a run for their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom