270 wsm

R

River runner

Regular
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Location
Abbotsford BC
Where does this round fit in?
Why did they make a short magnum out of it?
Where does it excel…… when is it too much, and not enough?

who hates it… who loves it

Thank you for your insights
 
A longer 30-06... As in flatter at longer distances, while holding that stopping power. Was considering it but ammos to expensive and I dont reload. ALso wanted the larger bullet weights of the -06
 
I think of it as a 7mag in a short action, I don't reload but Canadian Tire has the ammo now, becoming more common I think, it would not be my choice for an all round rifle but it's my choice for a long range deer rifle, got to shoot mine all the way out to 40 yards last fall. My son has a Tikka in 270wsm mine is an A bolt we found the 150 grain hit deer a little harder than necessary my preference is 130 grain, probably a poor choice for a bush rifle, if I know I am hunting brush I take something else.
 
River runner said:
Where does this round fit in?
Why did they make a short magnum out of it?
Where does it excel…… when is it too much, and not enough?

who hates it… who loves it

Thank you for your insights
Click to expand...

I met a lot of people and never expected such a huge band of fans of it.

It is shorter than 270! (53 mm vs 64.5mm). In other words you have a short action gun vs. long action gun = easier to cycle.

Pressure is the same, but the powder burn is more even due to shorter case = better accuracy.

270 was designed in 1923 and to fit the guns of that era. 270wsm was designed in 2002 with new technology in mind.

Now, the speed: 270 = 2,850 ft/s, 270wsm = 3,136 ft/s. A little bit flatter round. [based on 150 grain bullet]

270wsm takes about an extra 9 grains of powder.... So, you have a fat 270 on steroids. That's the bottom line.

PS. 300WSM outperform 300 WM, but takes less powder, uses shorter action and has flatter trajectory. "WSM" is an idea that focuses on design vs. add more stuff.
 
270_WSM_and_270_Win.jpg
 
Had one in a new Super-Grade for awhile. Very accurate like other .270's I've had, but without a cronograph I can't say they have anything over the good old .270WCF and you only get three in the mag.
 
Great long-range coyote - elk chambering. Ideal in open country of the western plains or mountains!
 
I have a Browning A-Bolt II in 270WSM and I love it. Very accurate, but it likely isn't real practical for the distances I shoot while hunting. However, I spend more time shooting from the bench than hunting anyway, practicality be damned!

As far as why did they create it, I say why not!? There are obviously advantages to the short, steep-shouldered design of the short mags so if you can improve on the ballistics of a cartridge with the lineage of the .270 WIN than why not! I am sure its not for everyone, but if you like short actions and high speed it is a winner!
 
guess_kto said:
PS. 300WSM outperform 300 WM, but takes less powder, uses shorter action and has flatter trajectory. "WSM" is an idea that focuses on design vs. add more stuff.
Click to expand...

You lose credibility when you say stuff like that. It does not, in any way, out perform the .300 Win; in fact, with heavier bullets, the .300 Win. clearly outperforms the short magnum.

There is a price for "less powder" that cannot be avoided. Physics, you know.
 
The .270 WSM fits right between the .270 Win and the .270 Weatherby Magnum.

The .270 Win has been around since the Model A was cutting edge stuff and has been handily filling freezers ever since. Well, it would have if people had power in the 20s. For many people it was their first exposure to high velocity. I don't mind that my Model 70 holds 6 of those skinny little things.

The .270 Weatherby has been around since the late 40s. If it would have been introduced by one of the majors in affordable rifles most of the factory magnums and a lot of the wildcats that followed decades later wouldn't have gotten much traction. Even today when I look at my .270 'bee I can't help comparing it to my STWs. Given 10 grains less bullet the trajectory is very similar and recoil is quite mild. Its quite a civilized way of making live things into dead things a long ways away. Hard to believe that it been around for 65 years or so.

The .270 WSM splits the difference, and fits in a short action. I'm not entirely convinced that that is an enormous advantage, but I do like mine. Some people seem to think it matters. It might be the only short magnum that is more powerful than the standard cartridge.


In the vast majority of hunting situations it isn't going to make any difference.
 
The 270WSM interests me the most. A bit more speed than the 270 Winchester. I think it would be an excellent deer round. Winchester M70 FTW 270WSM.....

BTW The 300WSM doesn't out perform the 300 Win Mag. Not even close. If you reload, the spread is even more.
 
270 WSM is a short action improved 270 Win, nothing more nothing less!
What you get:
  • 1/2 lb lighter rifle (++)
  • 1/2" shorter rifle (=)
  • 150-200 fps extra over 270 Win (+)
  • Improved accuracy (+)

Alex
 
Fired my custom remington model 7 .270wsm three times this year which equated a caribou a moose and whitetail. I am a believer best part gun weighs 6lb 2oz so is joy to carry. Regretfully wife took a liking to it so I have to build something new for myself.
 
rral22 said:
You lose credibility when you say stuff like that. It does not, in any way, out perform the .300 Win; in fact, with heavier bullets, the .300 Win. clearly outperforms the short magnum.

There is a price for "less powder" that cannot be avoided. Physics, you know.
Click to expand...
I did compared them and with the same powder load and the same bullet, wsm will produce higher speed. Factory loads of wsm give more punch too. However, you can hand load and produce anything you want.
 
guess_kto said:
I did compared them and with the same powder load and the same bullet, wsm will produce higher speed. Factory loads of wsm give more punch too. However, you can hand load and produce anything you want.
Click to expand...

I chronographed Winchester factory 180 grain ammo and barely made 2800 fps. If they can't make their own cartridge run................I'll shoot a 30-06.

By contrast my H1000 .300 Win handloads clock 3150 and aren't even maximum in most books. I had RL22 going 3200 with book loads, but got better long range accuracy with the H1000.
 
guess_kto said:
I did compared them and with the same powder load and the same bullet, wsm will produce higher speed. Factory loads of wsm give more punch too. However, you can hand load and produce anything you want.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous way to compare two cartridges, and what on earth is "more punch" that the factory loads of WSM are supposed to have?

I think the whole point of a comparison would be to compare the maximum potential of the two, not to handicap the .300 Win by deliberately loading it down to the same powder charge as you use in the .300 WSM. I would agree that "with the same powder load and same bullet" the .300 Win is not better. If you put the same powder charge in a larger case volume, the pressure will be less, and the resulting velocity will be less. The reason the .300 Win is superior is precisely because you can always load the .300 Win Mag to get more performance from any .30 Cal. bullet you want if you put more powder into the bigger case. That's why one gets bigger cases - to use more powder to get more performance. Duh.

I guess by your "comparison", the .338 Lapua would have no advantage over the .338 Win if you downloaded the charges in it to .338 Win levels. It too would likely have lower velocity because of the larger case volume of the bigger round.

That is, in fact, the reason why the .270 WSM is actually better than the old .270 Win. It is the only one of the "short mags" that has more powder capacity and actually makes realistic performance gains over the traditional round. But that is NOT true of the .300 WSM compared to the older .300 Win.

You need to re-think how you "compare" two cartridges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom