Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

.270 vs .270 WSM

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 10, 2013

.270 vs .270 WSM

By David E. Petzal

This question came from R. Peterson, and was intended for my new column, but I couldn’t resist, so here goes:

Is there any reason, Mr. Peterson asks, to choose a standard .270 over a .270 WSM? To which I reply, there are a number of them. I’ve used the standard .270 since 1973, and shot and hunted with it about as much as I have with anything. I owned a .270 WSM for 10 years, but I used it a lot.

What you get with the .270 WSM is about 150-200 fps more than you get with the standard cartridge. The velocity increase comes via a powder capacity that is 5 to 6 grains greater. In the older cartridge, you can reach 2,950 fps with a 150-grain bullet, which I consider the most useful weight, while in the .270 WSM you can reach 3,050. I found that the lighter bullet weights give a greater increase in velocities. With 130-grain bullets you can get 3,250 fps, which is really moving.

However, this comes at a price.

- A standard .270 does just fine with a 22-inch barrel, while the WSM requires 24 inches.

- Barrel life in the WSM is shorter, although this is not much of a factor in a hunting rifle.

- The WSM kicks harder and makes more noise.

- The .270 WSM, like all short magnums, often presents feeding problems, while the standard .270 slithers into the chamber like a rattler into a prairie dog hole. (WSSMs do not feed at all that I’ve been able to see.)

- WSM ammo is more expensive than standard .270, and is not as readily available.

- Rifles chambered for the WSM are not as easy to re-sell as standard .270s.

- The velocity increase of the .270 WSM does not kill anything any deader than the slower round; it does, however create a great mess if you use it at less than 250 yards where the bullets have a chance to slow down.

- The .270 WSM does make hitting easier at long range, but you will do as well or better with a good rangefinder and a range-compensating reticle teamed with a standard .270.

I like the .270 WSM. It did very well for me, and is, I believe, the best of the short magnums. But I wouldn’t choose it over the standard .270 which is one of the great hunting rounds of all time, all things considered.

Comments (72)

Top Rated
All Comments
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Ya can't improve on "perfection"!
Been shootin' a .270 Win since the early 70's! Until we have an influx of cape buff or rhino here in the Great Southwest, I see no reason to change!

HEY! COOP! TELL 'EM WHAT BILL C. "USTA" SAY!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I think that all new rifle cartridges are developed NOT for improved ballistic performance, but for improved rifle sales.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I've had a .270 WSM for a few years now and have taken only 2 deer with it. I don't think my level experience in any way matches up with Mr. Petzal's, but for what it's worth anectdotally:
Deer number 1 was a buck which may have been 200lbs on the hoof. He stopped from a full run at under 50 yards and turned slightly towards me when I yelled "Hey!" Shot entered front left shoulder and expended all energy in vital cavity. Deer traveled about 18 inches straight down. Front shoulder absolutely destroyed, contents of chest cavity were barely recognizable.
Deer number 2 was a decent sized doe just a few weeks ago. She was standing still facing me dead on at somewhere around 120 yards. I believe the term is "internally decapitated". Deer also traveled nowhere (performed one frontwards where rear legs kicked out propelling them over head where she lay still almost immediately) with a cleanly severed spine and no loss of meat other than neck.

Otherwise - I was actually trying to purchase a .270, which I had in hand and clerk at store pulled a switcheroo in back with boxes and I didn't realize it was a different rifle until I got home. As I was agonizing between the two calibers in choice, I decided the lord wanted me to have this rifle.
Ammunition is considerably more expensive and I wonder if factory ammo will dry up as the fad passes.
It kicked like a mule in a Savage 11 before I put a recoil pad on it. Up til then I regretted the purchase.
It is louder than most slug guns. I notice it at range with headphones on, but not in woods.
All that said, I really like it and have been thrilled with performance. As prior to this rifle I was using a borrowed family .243 and had a bad experience (which was partially my doing) I love my first dedicated deer rifle and I don't see myself closeting it unless it somehow gets damaged beyond repair.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejpaul1 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Well, I own a plain 270 and a 7mm WSM. I have other bolt rifles but they arent important to this post. I HAD to have a WSM and nobody had the 270 WSM sitting around in colorado, so I got a steal on this 7mm WSM. I have killed many big game animals with it and would never question its effectiveness. Having said that, the difference between the 270 and it are indistinguishable on game. The real difference is finding ammo ( I reload my own mostly) and using brass only once or twice. I have had many issues re-using brass from the ole WSM more than twice, gets stiff in the chamber. I like it and all but I'd have a 7mm Rem Magnum over it not due to performance but due to availability of ammo and brass life. long live the 270! And if you got a WSM and love it, keep loving it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I have never lusted after a .270 anything, but a couple of hunting friends have the .270 WSM and they whack like Thor's hammer to use an old tired cliche. I just sold one (unfired) that I won at a big game banquet. I think only one of our elk hunting gang has ever used a .270 Win but legions use it. I prefer a 7mm mag with 150 or 160 grain bullets, but the .270 Win is a deer rifle extraordinaire! I prefer the more lithe cartidges among other things...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve in Virginia wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I don't own a .270 WSM but have hunted with the standard .270 Win cartridge for many years and understand why it has become so popular over the past many decades. Great accuracy, relatively mild recoil, and the critters seem to expire quickly when properly hit, which is easier to do when the rifle/bullet combo has the attributes mentioned above.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

surprised to read that you favor 150 grain in .270 over 130.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

if i were to buy a .270,(I might) It would not be a WSM but the ggood ol' .270win.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

As I recall, Jack O Connor preferred the 130 grain bullets over the 150's. he was my boyhood idol so I used the 130 grain for years with a few frustrations, then switched to the 150s and have also found them to be the most "useful" weight. Have successfully hunted pronghorn, mule deer, elk, and African antelope with the 270.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from cmarcucci wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I took three deer this year, from the Del Rio, Texas area. The deer here are much smaller than northern brutes. All shot w/Weatherby .270 Win., Hornady Superformance 130 grain SST (ballistic tips). These bullets knock on 3200 fps I believe. Lung shots on two, and clipped the inside, upper front rt. leg on third. At 150-200 yds, entry and exit wounds were dime-sized on lung shots, w/internal damage being what u might expect. But just hitting a bit of bone on third translated into something "Hiroshima-like." I can only say that in the future, I will be looking for a bullet that might not do so much damage. In the end, it's about how much meat you have, not the level of destruction. The .270 Win. of old is, in short (I mean long), plenty.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I've got both, but the regular .270s get used more often. Originally got the .270 WSM in a synthetic Model 70 in order to shave a pound off the weight for use as an elk rifle.

Have taken a number of elk with the 150-gr in regular .270 Win. Makes them as dead as anything else I've used to take elk, including 180 gr. 30-06, 160 & 175 gr. 7 mm Mag, 180-gr. 300 Win Mag, and 225-gr. .338 Win mag.

To ejunk: Petzal didn't say the 150-gr was his favorite; he said it was the most useful. I agree, and here is why: You can use the 150-gr to effectively harvest many more and larger critters. My own favorite, however, is the 130-gr. because you can zero at longer distance and hold dead-on for longer shots. I have a rather solid semi-custom .270 Win. dedicated to the 130-gr specifically for "long-distance" shots at big game. For me, that is up to 450 yards on antelope and deer.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,
Just read your new column in the new Field & Stream, looks like you have a winner. Also enjoyed Phil's article on the old 1100. I own three, all bought with hard earned money during the sixties, a 28, a 20, and a now very beaten up 12 gauge. Over the years acquired. Several different barrels for all. Kindest Regards

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I've never owned a short magnum of any kind, but have had a .270 Win. since 1973, built on a Sako L-61 action, 22" Douglas barrel and Bishop classic style stock. I just killed my eighth wild sheep with it last month, also have taken a number of deer with the same rifle. I use the 130-gr. Nosler Partition as it has never failed me.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RPeterson wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,
Thank you for answering all my questions lately, its greatly appreciated.
Ryan

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD Bob wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'm very fond of the .270wsm, to the point that I now own 2 and have retired all my other calibers.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Just like muscle cars or sports teams to each his or her own. For me my 270 wsm will do everything my closet queen 300 mag will do except kick me into tomorrow. I've used it on elk with a 140 grain Accubond from 190 yards and the animal dropped, but i've seen them drop like that from a 7mm 08 because the hunter got a good shot off

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from chuckles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My first rifle was a .270 Win and I still have it. Everything I ever shot with it from elk to whitetail died immediately . I don't see a WSM in my future but it sure sounds like an effective cartridge.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Safado wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal,
First, great topic. I recently bought my first .270 Win and was afraid you were going to proclaim the .270 WSM the "bees knees". I have to say for as old as it is I am surprised that there aren't more variety in bullet weights besides 110, 130, 140 and 150 grains.
I too read your latest article in F & S and all I can say is I thought I was tough until I read about the "Code of the West":-D)
I too have three 1100's that I love as well Happy. 12 ga, 20 ga and 410 bore.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tootall75 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I have had my .270 for just over a year and that sucker is a tack driver!! I have yet to take any game with it but when I take it to the range I salivate at it's accuracy..pretty good for a factory rifle (Savage Model 111). I have a question and hope some of you will weigh in...I was talking this past hunting season about how much I do love the .270 but wouldn't mind having a 30.06 for moose. Some of my camp buddies said a .270 will do the job on a moose and some said it would be better to have a 30.06....what say you my friends??

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I have owned a 270 but I would rather have a sister in the whor## house than a brother with a .270. However I owned a .270 WSM that was a tac driver and didn't kick anymore than the .270 that I owned. I shot 130 grain Hornady SST's in it. I needed another gun and traded it and have regretted it. I shoot a 300WSM now and I like the WSM's. I load all of my own rounds and I get 7 to 9 reloads out of each case. All of my WSM rounds feed great , have never had a problem with them feeding in my Tikka's or Sako. They cost very little more to shoot if you load your own. The shorter fat cases are more accurate going back to the PPC rounds of the past. In other words I like my WSM's however I think that the only ones that you will see in the future are the 300WSM, 270WSM and maybe the 325WSM. The WSSM's were a joke.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, this article is simple, and to the point. Just like the .270 win. cartridge. Been gettin it done for years and probably with good old factory ammo in most cases!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I hate to stir the pot, but the .270 Winchester is a "standard" only in name. Pressure-wise and performance-wise, it is a magnum.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sarge01,
I'm with you on the .270 miracle worker. When I decided that I wanted a fast moving small bore, I cut to the chase and got a 7mm Weatherby Magnum. Like the man said, to each his own.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, you called it pretty much like it is. I have both - a 1953 Husqavarna that shot a lot of deer in Saskatchewan, that I got off a neighbor because he was done with it and all I had was a 30-30. My 270 WSM is a newer Browning BLR. I like levers and bolts are only OK. I went with 270 WSM because of the "S". I have stubby arms and a long action felt odd. If it wasn't for that, I'd be just as happy with a regular 270, although the perfectionist in me tends to like anything that can do more or the same with less, so I do favor the short actions.

The BLR is my go to gun for everything I hunt here in CO. It has all the perks and quirks mentioned by everyone. I wouldn't feel under-gunned with either round, but the 270WSM just seems to fit in my BLR. I shoot 140 grn Accubonds and they are far more accurate than I am.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, though it may not be much, it is true you can squeeze a bit more accuracy out of a wsm then a standard .270. is this assumption correct?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

the only reason iw ould get a .270 WSM is for the S i also have t-rex arms. oh well my 300 savage seems to work just fine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

OFF TOPIC:
I'm afraid few will pay attention to this because this is tacti-cool news, but John Noveske, who built some of the most accurate ARs in recent years (as a "builder" he used parts made by other companies, but he made the barrels, he used to work at Pac-Nor or something) has died in an automobile accident. The Geiselle family, who build their namesake triggers for the AR market, are producing a Noveske Memorial Trigger to honor Mr. Noveske.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, you forgot one advantage of the WSM over the original, if someone mentioned it above forgive me, I read most of them but skimmed towards the end. That advantage is of course the "S" in WSM. It's a short action and therefore a superior rifle in every way. It's lighter, more handsome than an ungainly long action, has a faster lock time, and I can run the bolt faster. You mention feeding issues but I would challenge any man to a bolt running contest with my Savage .300 WSM vs. a .300 win. mag.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from fordman155 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

If the 270 Win works for you, go with it. If you get a 270 WSM and it works for you, go with it. Comparing X chambering vs Y chambering of the same caliber is good mind candy, but it comes down to what level of accuracy or cost are you willing to go to in order to achieve your goals. I had a 270 Win, but I sold it when I got a 280 Rem that is a semi-custom rifle. I still want a 270 Win in a Model 70 Sporter because it is a classic American rifle. In my opinion, you don't call a rifle model a "classic" without it first being very good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fordman155 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

If the 270 Win works for you, go with it. If you get a 270 WSM and it works for you, go with it. Comparing X chambering vs Y chambering of the same caliber is good mind candy, but it comes down to what level of accuracy or cost are you willing to go to in order to achieve your goals. I had a 270 Win, but I sold it when I got a 280 Rem that is a semi-custom rifle. I still want a 270 Win in a Model 70 Sporter because it is a classic American rifle. In my opinion, you don't call a rifle model a "classic" without it first being very good.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from deadeyedick wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I tend to agree with 99explorer. I have been shooting a Remington 721 in 270 for a very long time. With it I have taken game all over the USA, Canada, And few other places and I do not see a need for WSM. With properly constructed bullets my .270 (actually a .277 ) will kill just about any game I care to hunt with it within reason, of course. I have a good supply of 180 gr silvertips and they will knock a moose into next week!! Besides I do not really care for any caliber that has "magnum" stuck on it just to sell more rifles.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I own both and love both but I find myself taking the short mag more than the old 270win. The short mag is lighter and more accurate and its running a 130 gr @3320fps, it gives me a point blank to 400 and keeps me within one turn of the turret at a 1000. The only reason the 270 wsm is chosen more has to do more with the rifle than the caliber. I also have wanted to build the gun of my child hood legends a 270 ackley magnum. My great grandfather had a custom rifle of this caliber built for him when he was too old to walk very far from the truck while hunting. I grew up hearing stories of long range shots, that no other rifle at the time could make.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Will someone please explain to me what arm length has to do with action length in modern bolt rifles? I don't think there is a whit of difference in the stock dimensions of the same model rifle short or long action. Weight differences are pretty small, too.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WAM - Action length isn't much of a factor for me in bolt guns, unless I just want a shorter throw. It matters greatly in levers and semi-autos. I like levers. If I could ever get the feel for bolt guns, I might still choose a short action cartridge - Preference. Reality, derived from ballistic tables, shows that there isn't much of a difference between most big game calibers inside of 200 yds. Most people shoot at this distance. This is of course based on my own review. Pick what you like. Not much of a difference between them unless you compare the high end of the range to the low end.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from HogBlog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I feel like the key to the comparison has been mentioned here a few times, but not necessarily highlighted... finding ammo for the WSM generally can be a challenge. It's not impossible, and of the short-mags out there, .270WSM seems to be the most common, but it can sure be hard to find...especially if you're not a fan of the Accubond or Ballistic Tip.

I've got the .325wsm that I absolutely love, but I'm pretty well relegated to handloads, especially for hunting in the lead-free zones in CA.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

As someone who was frightened by Jack O'Connor at birth, I have been shooting a .270 Winchester (though not exclusively) for more than 40 years. Over that span of time I have probably shot something on the order of three dozen or more various mammals with it, ranging in size from 50 pound javelinas to various exotics and hogs weighing well north of 300 pounds. I can't add anything to what Petzal had to say about the subject, other than amen on all counts.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My WSM isn't a problem for me because I haven't used a factorty load for over 35 years. I had to wait for a month in the beginning to get some 300WSM brass to load but now it is readily available in all of the supply houses. Around my neck of the woods 300WSM shells are on all the shelves of the sporting goods stores and even the Mom and Pop stores. My buddy has a Rem. 300 SAUM and if you don't load for it you are in big trouble because the Winchester WSM's buryed the Remington short action ultra magnums. I found him 100 empty cases at $70.00. The only reason he has it is because a guy practically gave it away and he couldn't pass up the deal. I like short guns and it may be small but short actions are somewhat shorter than their long action counterparts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sarge & Hog,

Interesting comments on ammo availability. I was lucky to find some boxes of Fed 14gr Accubonds at the LGS for $31. I was amazed and gobbled them up, thus putting off my need to reload for a couple years. I found that in CO I can find 300 WSM in almost any town, but not 270 WSM. I have to make sure I find it in the Denver metro area before I head anywhere. 300 WSM seems big out here, especially for Elk. It'd be interesting to see info on where each is popular. FYI...I never see 7mm WSM.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

One caveat on my "amen" to all of DEP's points. Personally, I don't believe you're taking advantage of the main virtues a .270 Winchester has to offer if you're not using 130 gr. bullets. Maybe 150 grains are "most useful" if you're looking for something to use on everything from deer to moose. But given the fantastic nature of the best modern bullets I don't think you're giving up much of anything in the way of sectional density, penetration or bone-smashing ability by sticking with the 130. What you are sacrificing with the 150 is the flatter trajectory and zip that made the .270 special in the first place. Again, talking all-around use; not hunting moose in the timber or kudu in the brush. I would never question Happy Myles's experience, which is far more extensive than mine, but 130s shoot fine in my own .270 and I cannot recall ever having to shoot anything twice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I like 150 grain bullets for deer. My 7mm Mauser, .30-06, 30-30, and .270 all work best with a 150 grain bullet at short ranges. That's all I have to say about that.

I have never tried the WSSM, WSM, RUM, SAUM, or any of the new wave of cartridges. Hell there are still a lot of 100 year old cartridges I need to test. I will trade my Ruger No. 1 in 7X57 for one chambered in .45-70...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

At short range a heavy bullet is the way to go, less meat damage and a dead deer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RandyMI wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I feel about the same for the .308 Winchester. Never found any deficiencies (in my limited experience) that didn't have my name written indelibly on them! :-)

Footnote:
I'm sure Dave & Phil harbor no dillusions about the term "gun nuts" but I actually found it in print in an OL book copywrited in 1947, on pg. 18. The title is "2000 Ideas for Sportsmen"... The .300 Savage was quite the rage along with the .348 Winchester, both in lever actions. Other popular rounds were .30/30 Win, .35 Rem., .257 Roberts and the .250/3000 Savage. Those old boys took lots of game and I have yet to find any reference to taking game at even 500 yds., let alone beyond. So far the highest power 'scope mentioned is a 6X! :-) Dot reticles were the cool setup.... :-)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

spuddog,
Here in the mountains of eastern WV where I am the 300WSM is extremely popular. You may see a 270WSM occasionally and I haven't seen a 7MMWSM for years. I can't explain why the 300WSM became so popular here but alot of people seem to like short action light rifles which might explain some of it, plus it is just a good cartridge. I had a 300 Win Mag once but I wouldn't trade my 300WSM for a 300 Win Mag on a bet.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Giggidy-Giggidy wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I never had a 270WSM, but I did have a 7mm WSM. Swapped it for a 30-06 and have no regrets. Sure the ballistics of a short mag are marginally better, but so what? You have to learn to shoot what ever rifle you buy. At least I can afford the 30-06 ammo, and can find it at any hole-in-the-wall sporting goods store.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WA Mountain Hunter: I think you would agree--different cartridges for different circumstances. I own many rifles, but my .270 has been my sheep rifle--8 lbs. and it does the job. I also have owned a 7mm Weatherby Magnum since 1965--magnificent cartridge, have shot more than a dozen elk, half dozen animals in Africa, a grizzly bear, two black bears and a mountain goat with it along with numerous deer. It is on its second barrel, a 26" Douglas. The 7mm Weatherby is probably the best 7mm magnum in existence. Please excuse my bias.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bernie,
You have way more critters down with the 7mm Roy. My batting average is 1.000 however. How many rounds did you get out of the original barrel? I have no idea how many are through mine since I got it used, but the rifling looks strong and it shoots well.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Let me see if I can get this out with any alacrity!
I started with a .30-30. Years of reading Cactus Jack had me yearning for the coveted (in MY mind!) .270 Win! Sure enough, after a couple of failed trade attemps, the "blessed" event occured and I became the proud possessor of one Parker Hale bolt gun in the enviable chambering of .270 Win! I've attempted many different calibers since, but always returned to the .270!

WAM posted, on the Answer section about the age of many current chamberings.
Yes, technological advancements give us cleaner propellants, better barrels and bullet designs and materials....BUT....
one thing seems to remain constant!
Regardless of diameter, a projectile of sufficient weight, accurately delivered to a desired target at a respectable speed (3000 +/- fps) will render said target to table fare quite admirably!
While the "charcoal" burners of yore were extremely capable of slaying assorted beasties, it didn't stop there! Man's desire to rule other men led to the development of the "self contained" cartridge. From it's inception in the early 1800's until,say, 1906 (.30-'06 Springfield?) ammo improved. Since that time (ABOUT 1906 +/-), the "cartridge" itself has changed VERY little.
A muzzle velocity of 3 grand is still respectable AND "very" capable of taking today's "improved" (?) game animals.
Had technology in the "cartridge" field progressed at the same rate in the hundred years "after" 1906 as it did in the hundred years "prior" to 1906, would we now be seeing 5000 fps muzzle velocities?
The current technology in use today is still acceptable, and capable. What the future holds, who knows?
I do know this!
I shoot a .270 Win I handload for that delivers a Sierra 130gr BTSP down range at about 2900 fps (+/-) and still slays to the same degree of death as a .50Bmg or a .17 HRM.

Thutty naught six, thutty-thutty, .22LR or .460 Wby Mag! Hunnerd year old technology is just as deadly today as the day of it's concept approximately 200 years ago and has advanced very little!
Amazing, huh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Let me see if I can get this out with any alacrity!
I started with a .30-30. Years of reading Cactus Jack had me yearning for the coveted (in MY mind!) .270 Win! Sure enough, after a couple of failed trade attemps, the "blessed" event occured and I became the proud possessor of one Parker Hale bolt gun in the enviable chambering of .270 Win! I've attempted many different calibers since, but always returned to the .270!

WAM posted, on the Answer section about the age of many current chamberings.
Yes, technological advancements give us cleaner propellants, better barrels and bullet designs and materials....BUT....
one thing seems to remain constant!
Regardless of diameter, a projectile of sufficient weight, accurately delivered to a desired target at a respectable speed (3000 +/- fps) will render said target to table fare quite admirably!
While the "charcoal" burners of yore were extremely capable of slaying assorted beasties, it didn't stop there! Man's desire to rule other men led to the development of the "self contained" cartridge. From it's inception in the early 1800's until,say, 1906 (.30-'06 Springfield?) ammo improved. Since that time (ABOUT 1906 +/-), the "cartridge" itself has changed VERY little.
A muzzle velocity of 3 grand is still respectable AND "very" capable of taking today's "improved" (?) game animals.
Had technology in the "cartridge" field progressed at the same rate in the hundred years "after" 1906 as it did in the hundred years "prior" to 1906, would we now be seeing 5000 fps muzzle velocities?
The current technology in use today is still acceptable, and capable. What the future holds, who knows?
I do know this!
I shoot a .270 Win I handload for that delivers a Sierra 130gr BTSP down range at about 2900 fps (+/-) and still slays to the same degree of death as a .50Bmg or a .17 HRM.

Thutty naught six, thutty-thutty, .22LR or .460 Wby Mag! Hunnerd year old technology is just as deadly today as the day of it's concept approximately 200 years ago and has advanced very little!
Amazing, huh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from o6Patient wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I don't own either but it would be very hard to pick between the 2 if I were to buy one. One is in a short action and shoots flatter. The other far more civilized and forgiving.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gtbigsky wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I would choose the rifle which has withstood the test of time( 90 years exactly) has readily available ammo, doesnt have feeding problems, shoot flat enough and less recoil. In my opinion there is very little reason to get a 270 wsm. If you want more energy and a flatter trajectory than a 270 win get a 7mm rem mag. At least with the 7mm you could easily find ammo loaded with bullets weighing up too 175 gr. Although the 7mm shines with 160 bts

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WA Mtnhunter: I had the original lightweight 24" barrel on the 7mm Wea. for 15 years. I doubt if I put 1,000 rounds through it, but it never shot consistently well, so in 1980 I had it replaced with the 26" Douglas, medium weight. (I am sorry--can't tell you the contour.) But the rifle shot well after that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

FirstBubba,
Your mention of Parker Hale reminds of an experience decades ago in Zambia as I recall. A new government scout appeared in camp carrying a very battered old rifle, "ah, a Parker Hale", I said. He proudly scolded me in a dignified fashion, "no sir, this is an English rifle"! He was a grand gentleman and stood by me for forty days with his prized rifle which had no front nor rear sight.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

well, as far as i can see, all the hype of short mag, and super short mags, that really is intended as a way to sell guns to the younger up and coming group of shooters, is just that. i have shot a 300 win mag for better than 20 years. i have shot nothing that it did not kill immediately, if not sooner. but it has cost me some meat via destroyed body parts. my father used a 300 H&H magnum in the rifle of all rifles, a pre 64 Winchester 70. my younger brother still uses it to this day. so i guess you could say that our "magnumitis" was passed down to us from my father. i certainly have no problem with that. in my dad's later years, he wanted to downsize a bit, and he wanted to go semi auto. so he bought a used Remington 742 in 30-06. not much of a downsize, but it was lighter, shorter, and shot softer than the old steel butt plate attached to that 70. he was no less deadly with the 06 than he was with the magnum. if we all, are REALLY honest, most of us really do not need a magnum round. those of us who shoot beyond 300 yards have a valid reason, and so do those who seek animals that can and will turn around and eat you given half a chance. but the majority of us, could do as well, and some of us better with a more modest round. i have taken 1 shot over 300 yards. that is not much in all these years of hunting. will i ever get rid of my magnum? probably not. i have it fitting me just the way i want, and i shoot it quite well. in another 5 years or so, if i have the desire, i will simply download it to 30-06, 308 or something similar. then i will still be able to brag to you youngsters that i shoot a 300 win mag, and be comfortable too! you see, us old codgers do get wiser with age. you'll learn that with time. we have no idea about some of the new stuff you carrying in your pockets. but if you have a real life problem, look to an elder. 50,000 years of evolution can not be wrong.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bernie,
From all appearances of factory markings, I believe mine is the hammer forged original 24" factory barrel. From the serialization, it was made in 1992-94 timeframe. It shoots consistently well with handloads with Barnes TSX and Weatherby factory softpoints. The first box of ammo I ran through it was Hornady factory Interbonds which could loosely be described as patterning vice grouping....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bret Bunderson wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr.Petzal,
I respectfully agree to disagree. A gentleman looks at all the facts before one should write about the good old boys calibers and why it's better. If we wanted to talk about the cartridge that has taken more game in North America it would be a 30-06. Fact is the Remington, Winchester,Ruger,Weatherby,& Kimber who by the way makes a custom action to take full advantage of the .270wsm all know that cartridge is superior in accuracy and ballistics.
If we keep pounding out the same old cartridges will technology advance?
Your logic was based on cost and that's about it.
I like you have hunted with the .270 wsm in a Weatherby Vanguard for about ten years now and no way is it an apples to apples comparison to a .270.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

H. Myles. LOL!
Though sadly, I no longer possess "my" original PH, my "main" bolt is indeed the second PH I ever laid my hands on. Topped with a Leupold VX I 3x9 that has only seen minor adjustments since 1976. I can fully understand the man's dedication to his "English" rifle!

Best regards.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Leupold's website says they introduced the VX-1 in 2002?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Fuji vs Honey Crisp apples? WGAFF? It is sleeting outside and I am trying to figure out how I can afford to go elk hunting this year, upgrade my 4X4, build a dream 338 Lapua Mannlicher, and keep my sanity while working in Forensics at the formerly known Arkansas Insane Asylum. Cheers Dave, flannels back and so are you, sort of.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Yeah Leupold changed everything in 2002... they quit making the Vari-X 2 and started making the VX-2 and VX-1 which I thought were both of lower quality than the old Vari-X models. The Rifleman series they make now is even worse, I think it came along in 2008 after they bought Redfield.

The Vari-X 2's were really good and I remember when they phased them out they had a stack at Bass Pro $30 off for $189... I wish I had bought three or four, I did get one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from moxiaomi88629 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Thank you everyone focusing Home www.lilydating.com I friends

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbstclair wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I own them both, and to be honest, I may have hunted with my .270 twice since I got my WSM in 2003. The biggest reason, weight. My .270 with walnut stock and Nikon 3x9x40 weighs in at just around 8.75. The .270 WSM with identical scope, and synthetic stock, a pound less. That may not seem like alot, but I hike at least a mile up ridges steeper than a mule's face to get to the most accessible points I hunt. Yes, the recoil is a little more in the WSM, and the factory ammo is a little hard to come by if you buy factory loads, but I load my own, so they are a little hotter than anything on the shelf anyways. I've used that gun to take elk at 330 and drilled it like it was at 30. My .270, is just as accurate but, I prefer the WSM.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'll admit to being one of the younger crowd at least on this forum, but to sum up the preceeding 60 plus posts (including my own):

The .270 is a great cartridge fondly remembered and generally still used by those who've owned a rifle chambered in it.

The .270WSM based on the above appears to be respected by all those who've actually hunted with or around one, if not loved by all (though I'm real fond of mine).

They are not the same, and so they're merits can be debated, and so Mr. Petzal and his companions still have a job.

I don't think the state of things can get much better than this.

Will probably get worse after the WH press conference today.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My use of homonyms continues to be atrocious and never jumps out at me until after I submit a post. My apologies to all.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WAM & DrRalph! I don't know about exact dates, but you did make me go back to the closet! LOL!! You're quite correct! I rigged out the rifle in 1976! Since then, I shoot it, clean it and check "zero" each fall! Yep! It's a Leupold Vari-X II rather than the VX-I as stated ..
The scope, brand spanking new, set me back $98! The gun only cost around $250! My dad was appalled at what I'd spent on a gun! LOL!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Yep, that Vari-X II is probable a better scope than a VX-1 anyway!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Safado wrote 1 year 12 weeks ago

My question is besides the short action; what does a .270 WSM do that a .270 Weatherby Magnum can't do?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 12 weeks ago

Safado,
It will do about the same thing as a .270 Roy, only about 150 fps slower....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HuntItAll wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

1) If it is your first rifle and you only can afford 1, get the 270.

2) If you primarily hunt out west, flatter is ALWAYS better.

3) If you can handle the extra weight while hiking with it all day, the longer barrel is better. (See #2)

4) That elk is not going to be any less dead if you're accurate with whatever choice you make.

Good Hunting.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from missedit wrote 1 year 2 weeks ago

270 IS RIGHT BEHIND 30.06 BOTH GREAT RIFLES!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tyke wrote 30 weeks 6 days ago

Living in the UK our number of outlets selling ammunition is far lower & far more regulated that you are are blessed with across most of the US.
Accordingly it pays to keep to pretty standard chamberings if you want to be able to buy factory ammunition at the nearest gun shop (which may be some distance away).
I chose a .243 win for smaller deer & foxes, very popular here as a woodland roe deer cartridge as they usually weigh in around 50 lbs, & a .270 win for longer range hill work & larger species where I want bait more "clout".
The most popular larger cartridge is the .308 win but I figured this was too close in nature to the .243 & the flatter shooting .270 would give me the bigger spread in terms of performance between the two. Also the physical differences between the rounds would avoid a low light level mix up where a .243 accidentally gets fired through a .308 ( I presume you can't close the bolt if you try shoving a .308 into a .243 chamber - that would produce a much more significant effect!).
To be honest, using 100 trainers in the .243 I have taken big red stags, & I've shot roe with the .270 simply because that was what I was carrying at the time; the .270 was a bit harder in terms of meat loss on a little roe & really good shot placement in needed with the .243 on a big red or Sika stag - but both get the job done, just not as efficiently as the other in these role reversal situations.
For our UK species the .270 win is as much as is needed for deer, the only circumstances where anything extra may be required would be for wild boar ( although the .270 is legal for these & I'm told works just fine with a heavier & strongly constructed bullet) but this may be better served by a larger caliber of .30 or above, rather than a slightly faster moving .270 WSM - especially as these are usually in woodland & the round risks encountering twigs etc on its' way to "makin' bacon".
I use 130 grains for open ground work for the flatter trajectory but still have some Federal 150 round nose left which are superb for big fallow bucks or red/ Sika stags in the woods as generally they don't run any where when you hit them with these so extraction is much easier - this is relatively short range stuff of 100 yds or less so the greater bullet drop etc isn't an issue in these circumstances & it drops a deer like a lightening strike!
I have no doubt that for full time hill use the WSM would be better, allowing a stronger, heavier bullet to be launched at the same trajectory as the .270 Win propels the .130 grainer, but the lack of availability over here & the reduced choice of bullet weight/ types if the shop did carry any means that for me it is a non starter. If you re-load it may be different, but for 99% of your shots you will never need the extra energy & for that other 1% you have to put up with additional recoil, noise & reloading costs on every shot.
Also because of the supply issues the re sale value of the WSM will be less than the more widely available .270 win.
I really wish we had your level of availability though!

Regards, Tyke.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 268bull wrote 28 weeks 4 hours ago

I was sold on the .270 with the first whitetail I shot with it in 1976. Had to have one of my own. Bought a used one in 1977. Have hunted exclusively Blacktails and Roosevelt elk since with it. I could not have asked for any more out of a rifle than I have gotten from My Rem. 760. While it is true, I've never had to take longer than a 75, 80 yd. shot on an elk, ( 130 yds.on a blktail. )that old rifle has been as reliable and trustworthy as a dedicated rabbit hound. While I've never shot a .270 WSM., believe me, I've never found any pleasure ( in my shoulder )in sighting in my model 760, .270 either. I've subjected it to some of the harshest conditions and situations, and it's never let me down. Here's to the Remington 760, .270!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Mcdonald wrote 16 weeks 4 days ago

Well good thing we have new ammunition advances. Otherwise no one would have a .270 or 30.06. We would all be using bows and arrows and spears. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from 99explorer wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I think that all new rifle cartridges are developed NOT for improved ballistic performance, but for improved rifle sales.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I've had a .270 WSM for a few years now and have taken only 2 deer with it. I don't think my level experience in any way matches up with Mr. Petzal's, but for what it's worth anectdotally:
Deer number 1 was a buck which may have been 200lbs on the hoof. He stopped from a full run at under 50 yards and turned slightly towards me when I yelled "Hey!" Shot entered front left shoulder and expended all energy in vital cavity. Deer traveled about 18 inches straight down. Front shoulder absolutely destroyed, contents of chest cavity were barely recognizable.
Deer number 2 was a decent sized doe just a few weeks ago. She was standing still facing me dead on at somewhere around 120 yards. I believe the term is "internally decapitated". Deer also traveled nowhere (performed one frontwards where rear legs kicked out propelling them over head where she lay still almost immediately) with a cleanly severed spine and no loss of meat other than neck.

Otherwise - I was actually trying to purchase a .270, which I had in hand and clerk at store pulled a switcheroo in back with boxes and I didn't realize it was a different rifle until I got home. As I was agonizing between the two calibers in choice, I decided the lord wanted me to have this rifle.
Ammunition is considerably more expensive and I wonder if factory ammo will dry up as the fad passes.
It kicked like a mule in a Savage 11 before I put a recoil pad on it. Up til then I regretted the purchase.
It is louder than most slug guns. I notice it at range with headphones on, but not in woods.
All that said, I really like it and have been thrilled with performance. As prior to this rifle I was using a borrowed family .243 and had a bad experience (which was partially my doing) I love my first dedicated deer rifle and I don't see myself closeting it unless it somehow gets damaged beyond repair.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

As I recall, Jack O Connor preferred the 130 grain bullets over the 150's. he was my boyhood idol so I used the 130 grain for years with a few frustrations, then switched to the 150s and have also found them to be the most "useful" weight. Have successfully hunted pronghorn, mule deer, elk, and African antelope with the 270.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I've got both, but the regular .270s get used more often. Originally got the .270 WSM in a synthetic Model 70 in order to shave a pound off the weight for use as an elk rifle.

Have taken a number of elk with the 150-gr in regular .270 Win. Makes them as dead as anything else I've used to take elk, including 180 gr. 30-06, 160 & 175 gr. 7 mm Mag, 180-gr. 300 Win Mag, and 225-gr. .338 Win mag.

To ejunk: Petzal didn't say the 150-gr was his favorite; he said it was the most useful. I agree, and here is why: You can use the 150-gr to effectively harvest many more and larger critters. My own favorite, however, is the 130-gr. because you can zero at longer distance and hold dead-on for longer shots. I have a rather solid semi-custom .270 Win. dedicated to the 130-gr specifically for "long-distance" shots at big game. For me, that is up to 450 yards on antelope and deer.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, you forgot one advantage of the WSM over the original, if someone mentioned it above forgive me, I read most of them but skimmed towards the end. That advantage is of course the "S" in WSM. It's a short action and therefore a superior rifle in every way. It's lighter, more handsome than an ungainly long action, has a faster lock time, and I can run the bolt faster. You mention feeding issues but I would challenge any man to a bolt running contest with my Savage .300 WSM vs. a .300 win. mag.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gtbigsky wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I would choose the rifle which has withstood the test of time( 90 years exactly) has readily available ammo, doesnt have feeding problems, shoot flat enough and less recoil. In my opinion there is very little reason to get a 270 wsm. If you want more energy and a flatter trajectory than a 270 win get a 7mm rem mag. At least with the 7mm you could easily find ammo loaded with bullets weighing up too 175 gr. Although the 7mm shines with 160 bts

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Ya can't improve on "perfection"!
Been shootin' a .270 Win since the early 70's! Until we have an influx of cape buff or rhino here in the Great Southwest, I see no reason to change!

HEY! COOP! TELL 'EM WHAT BILL C. "USTA" SAY!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I've never owned a short magnum of any kind, but have had a .270 Win. since 1973, built on a Sako L-61 action, 22" Douglas barrel and Bishop classic style stock. I just killed my eighth wild sheep with it last month, also have taken a number of deer with the same rifle. I use the 130-gr. Nosler Partition as it has never failed me.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD Bob wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'm very fond of the .270wsm, to the point that I now own 2 and have retired all my other calibers.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from chuckles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My first rifle was a .270 Win and I still have it. Everything I ever shot with it from elk to whitetail died immediately . I don't see a WSM in my future but it sure sounds like an effective cartridge.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I have owned a 270 but I would rather have a sister in the whor## house than a brother with a .270. However I owned a .270 WSM that was a tac driver and didn't kick anymore than the .270 that I owned. I shot 130 grain Hornady SST's in it. I needed another gun and traded it and have regretted it. I shoot a 300WSM now and I like the WSM's. I load all of my own rounds and I get 7 to 9 reloads out of each case. All of my WSM rounds feed great , have never had a problem with them feeding in my Tikka's or Sako. They cost very little more to shoot if you load your own. The shorter fat cases are more accurate going back to the PPC rounds of the past. In other words I like my WSM's however I think that the only ones that you will see in the future are the 300WSM, 270WSM and maybe the 325WSM. The WSSM's were a joke.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I hate to stir the pot, but the .270 Winchester is a "standard" only in name. Pressure-wise and performance-wise, it is a magnum.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I own both and love both but I find myself taking the short mag more than the old 270win. The short mag is lighter and more accurate and its running a 130 gr @3320fps, it gives me a point blank to 400 and keeps me within one turn of the turret at a 1000. The only reason the 270 wsm is chosen more has to do more with the rifle than the caliber. I also have wanted to build the gun of my child hood legends a 270 ackley magnum. My great grandfather had a custom rifle of this caliber built for him when he was too old to walk very far from the truck while hunting. I grew up hearing stories of long range shots, that no other rifle at the time could make.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Will someone please explain to me what arm length has to do with action length in modern bolt rifles? I don't think there is a whit of difference in the stock dimensions of the same model rifle short or long action. Weight differences are pretty small, too.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RandyMI wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I feel about the same for the .308 Winchester. Never found any deficiencies (in my limited experience) that didn't have my name written indelibly on them! :-)

Footnote:
I'm sure Dave & Phil harbor no dillusions about the term "gun nuts" but I actually found it in print in an OL book copywrited in 1947, on pg. 18. The title is "2000 Ideas for Sportsmen"... The .300 Savage was quite the rage along with the .348 Winchester, both in lever actions. Other popular rounds were .30/30 Win, .35 Rem., .257 Roberts and the .250/3000 Savage. Those old boys took lots of game and I have yet to find any reference to taking game at even 500 yds., let alone beyond. So far the highest power 'scope mentioned is a 6X! :-) Dot reticles were the cool setup.... :-)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Giggidy-Giggidy wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I never had a 270WSM, but I did have a 7mm WSM. Swapped it for a 30-06 and have no regrets. Sure the ballistics of a short mag are marginally better, but so what? You have to learn to shoot what ever rifle you buy. At least I can afford the 30-06 ammo, and can find it at any hole-in-the-wall sporting goods store.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WA Mountain Hunter: I think you would agree--different cartridges for different circumstances. I own many rifles, but my .270 has been my sheep rifle--8 lbs. and it does the job. I also have owned a 7mm Weatherby Magnum since 1965--magnificent cartridge, have shot more than a dozen elk, half dozen animals in Africa, a grizzly bear, two black bears and a mountain goat with it along with numerous deer. It is on its second barrel, a 26" Douglas. The 7mm Weatherby is probably the best 7mm magnum in existence. Please excuse my bias.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from o6Patient wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I don't own either but it would be very hard to pick between the 2 if I were to buy one. One is in a short action and shoots flatter. The other far more civilized and forgiving.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

FirstBubba,
Your mention of Parker Hale reminds of an experience decades ago in Zambia as I recall. A new government scout appeared in camp carrying a very battered old rifle, "ah, a Parker Hale", I said. He proudly scolded me in a dignified fashion, "no sir, this is an English rifle"! He was a grand gentleman and stood by me for forty days with his prized rifle which had no front nor rear sight.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from elmer f. wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

well, as far as i can see, all the hype of short mag, and super short mags, that really is intended as a way to sell guns to the younger up and coming group of shooters, is just that. i have shot a 300 win mag for better than 20 years. i have shot nothing that it did not kill immediately, if not sooner. but it has cost me some meat via destroyed body parts. my father used a 300 H&H magnum in the rifle of all rifles, a pre 64 Winchester 70. my younger brother still uses it to this day. so i guess you could say that our "magnumitis" was passed down to us from my father. i certainly have no problem with that. in my dad's later years, he wanted to downsize a bit, and he wanted to go semi auto. so he bought a used Remington 742 in 30-06. not much of a downsize, but it was lighter, shorter, and shot softer than the old steel butt plate attached to that 70. he was no less deadly with the 06 than he was with the magnum. if we all, are REALLY honest, most of us really do not need a magnum round. those of us who shoot beyond 300 yards have a valid reason, and so do those who seek animals that can and will turn around and eat you given half a chance. but the majority of us, could do as well, and some of us better with a more modest round. i have taken 1 shot over 300 yards. that is not much in all these years of hunting. will i ever get rid of my magnum? probably not. i have it fitting me just the way i want, and i shoot it quite well. in another 5 years or so, if i have the desire, i will simply download it to 30-06, 308 or something similar. then i will still be able to brag to you youngsters that i shoot a 300 win mag, and be comfortable too! you see, us old codgers do get wiser with age. you'll learn that with time. we have no idea about some of the new stuff you carrying in your pockets. but if you have a real life problem, look to an elder. 50,000 years of evolution can not be wrong.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejpaul1 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Well, I own a plain 270 and a 7mm WSM. I have other bolt rifles but they arent important to this post. I HAD to have a WSM and nobody had the 270 WSM sitting around in colorado, so I got a steal on this 7mm WSM. I have killed many big game animals with it and would never question its effectiveness. Having said that, the difference between the 270 and it are indistinguishable on game. The real difference is finding ammo ( I reload my own mostly) and using brass only once or twice. I have had many issues re-using brass from the ole WSM more than twice, gets stiff in the chamber. I like it and all but I'd have a 7mm Rem Magnum over it not due to performance but due to availability of ammo and brass life. long live the 270! And if you got a WSM and love it, keep loving it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve in Virginia wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I don't own a .270 WSM but have hunted with the standard .270 Win cartridge for many years and understand why it has become so popular over the past many decades. Great accuracy, relatively mild recoil, and the critters seem to expire quickly when properly hit, which is easier to do when the rifle/bullet combo has the attributes mentioned above.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from cmarcucci wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I took three deer this year, from the Del Rio, Texas area. The deer here are much smaller than northern brutes. All shot w/Weatherby .270 Win., Hornady Superformance 130 grain SST (ballistic tips). These bullets knock on 3200 fps I believe. Lung shots on two, and clipped the inside, upper front rt. leg on third. At 150-200 yds, entry and exit wounds were dime-sized on lung shots, w/internal damage being what u might expect. But just hitting a bit of bone on third translated into something "Hiroshima-like." I can only say that in the future, I will be looking for a bullet that might not do so much damage. In the end, it's about how much meat you have, not the level of destruction. The .270 Win. of old is, in short (I mean long), plenty.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,
Just read your new column in the new Field & Stream, looks like you have a winner. Also enjoyed Phil's article on the old 1100. I own three, all bought with hard earned money during the sixties, a 28, a 20, and a now very beaten up 12 gauge. Over the years acquired. Several different barrels for all. Kindest Regards

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, this article is simple, and to the point. Just like the .270 win. cartridge. Been gettin it done for years and probably with good old factory ammo in most cases!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sarge01,
I'm with you on the .270 miracle worker. When I decided that I wanted a fast moving small bore, I cut to the chase and got a 7mm Weatherby Magnum. Like the man said, to each his own.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, you called it pretty much like it is. I have both - a 1953 Husqavarna that shot a lot of deer in Saskatchewan, that I got off a neighbor because he was done with it and all I had was a 30-30. My 270 WSM is a newer Browning BLR. I like levers and bolts are only OK. I went with 270 WSM because of the "S". I have stubby arms and a long action felt odd. If it wasn't for that, I'd be just as happy with a regular 270, although the perfectionist in me tends to like anything that can do more or the same with less, so I do favor the short actions.

The BLR is my go to gun for everything I hunt here in CO. It has all the perks and quirks mentioned by everyone. I wouldn't feel under-gunned with either round, but the 270WSM just seems to fit in my BLR. I shoot 140 grn Accubonds and they are far more accurate than I am.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fordman155 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

If the 270 Win works for you, go with it. If you get a 270 WSM and it works for you, go with it. Comparing X chambering vs Y chambering of the same caliber is good mind candy, but it comes down to what level of accuracy or cost are you willing to go to in order to achieve your goals. I had a 270 Win, but I sold it when I got a 280 Rem that is a semi-custom rifle. I still want a 270 Win in a Model 70 Sporter because it is a classic American rifle. In my opinion, you don't call a rifle model a "classic" without it first being very good.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from deadeyedick wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I tend to agree with 99explorer. I have been shooting a Remington 721 in 270 for a very long time. With it I have taken game all over the USA, Canada, And few other places and I do not see a need for WSM. With properly constructed bullets my .270 (actually a .277 ) will kill just about any game I care to hunt with it within reason, of course. I have a good supply of 180 gr silvertips and they will knock a moose into next week!! Besides I do not really care for any caliber that has "magnum" stuck on it just to sell more rifles.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

As someone who was frightened by Jack O'Connor at birth, I have been shooting a .270 Winchester (though not exclusively) for more than 40 years. Over that span of time I have probably shot something on the order of three dozen or more various mammals with it, ranging in size from 50 pound javelinas to various exotics and hogs weighing well north of 300 pounds. I can't add anything to what Petzal had to say about the subject, other than amen on all counts.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

One caveat on my "amen" to all of DEP's points. Personally, I don't believe you're taking advantage of the main virtues a .270 Winchester has to offer if you're not using 130 gr. bullets. Maybe 150 grains are "most useful" if you're looking for something to use on everything from deer to moose. But given the fantastic nature of the best modern bullets I don't think you're giving up much of anything in the way of sectional density, penetration or bone-smashing ability by sticking with the 130. What you are sacrificing with the 150 is the flatter trajectory and zip that made the .270 special in the first place. Again, talking all-around use; not hunting moose in the timber or kudu in the brush. I would never question Happy Myles's experience, which is far more extensive than mine, but 130s shoot fine in my own .270 and I cannot recall ever having to shoot anything twice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I like 150 grain bullets for deer. My 7mm Mauser, .30-06, 30-30, and .270 all work best with a 150 grain bullet at short ranges. That's all I have to say about that.

I have never tried the WSSM, WSM, RUM, SAUM, or any of the new wave of cartridges. Hell there are still a lot of 100 year old cartridges I need to test. I will trade my Ruger No. 1 in 7X57 for one chambered in .45-70...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

At short range a heavy bullet is the way to go, less meat damage and a dead deer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bernie,
You have way more critters down with the 7mm Roy. My batting average is 1.000 however. How many rounds did you get out of the original barrel? I have no idea how many are through mine since I got it used, but the rifling looks strong and it shoots well.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WA Mtnhunter: I had the original lightweight 24" barrel on the 7mm Wea. for 15 years. I doubt if I put 1,000 rounds through it, but it never shot consistently well, so in 1980 I had it replaced with the 26" Douglas, medium weight. (I am sorry--can't tell you the contour.) But the rifle shot well after that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bernie,
From all appearances of factory markings, I believe mine is the hammer forged original 24" factory barrel. From the serialization, it was made in 1992-94 timeframe. It shoots consistently well with handloads with Barnes TSX and Weatherby factory softpoints. The first box of ammo I ran through it was Hornady factory Interbonds which could loosely be described as patterning vice grouping....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

H. Myles. LOL!
Though sadly, I no longer possess "my" original PH, my "main" bolt is indeed the second PH I ever laid my hands on. Topped with a Leupold VX I 3x9 that has only seen minor adjustments since 1976. I can fully understand the man's dedication to his "English" rifle!

Best regards.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Leupold's website says they introduced the VX-1 in 2002?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cbstclair wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I own them both, and to be honest, I may have hunted with my .270 twice since I got my WSM in 2003. The biggest reason, weight. My .270 with walnut stock and Nikon 3x9x40 weighs in at just around 8.75. The .270 WSM with identical scope, and synthetic stock, a pound less. That may not seem like alot, but I hike at least a mile up ridges steeper than a mule's face to get to the most accessible points I hunt. Yes, the recoil is a little more in the WSM, and the factory ammo is a little hard to come by if you buy factory loads, but I load my own, so they are a little hotter than anything on the shelf anyways. I've used that gun to take elk at 330 and drilled it like it was at 30. My .270, is just as accurate but, I prefer the WSM.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'll admit to being one of the younger crowd at least on this forum, but to sum up the preceeding 60 plus posts (including my own):

The .270 is a great cartridge fondly remembered and generally still used by those who've owned a rifle chambered in it.

The .270WSM based on the above appears to be respected by all those who've actually hunted with or around one, if not loved by all (though I'm real fond of mine).

They are not the same, and so they're merits can be debated, and so Mr. Petzal and his companions still have a job.

I don't think the state of things can get much better than this.

Will probably get worse after the WH press conference today.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 12 weeks ago

Safado,
It will do about the same thing as a .270 Roy, only about 150 fps slower....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I have never lusted after a .270 anything, but a couple of hunting friends have the .270 WSM and they whack like Thor's hammer to use an old tired cliche. I just sold one (unfired) that I won at a big game banquet. I think only one of our elk hunting gang has ever used a .270 Win but legions use it. I prefer a 7mm mag with 150 or 160 grain bullets, but the .270 Win is a deer rifle extraordinaire! I prefer the more lithe cartidges among other things...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

surprised to read that you favor 150 grain in .270 over 130.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

if i were to buy a .270,(I might) It would not be a WSM but the ggood ol' .270win.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RPeterson wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,
Thank you for answering all my questions lately, its greatly appreciated.
Ryan

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Just like muscle cars or sports teams to each his or her own. For me my 270 wsm will do everything my closet queen 300 mag will do except kick me into tomorrow. I've used it on elk with a 140 grain Accubond from 190 yards and the animal dropped, but i've seen them drop like that from a 7mm 08 because the hunter got a good shot off

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Safado wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal,
First, great topic. I recently bought my first .270 Win and was afraid you were going to proclaim the .270 WSM the "bees knees". I have to say for as old as it is I am surprised that there aren't more variety in bullet weights besides 110, 130, 140 and 150 grains.
I too read your latest article in F & S and all I can say is I thought I was tough until I read about the "Code of the West":-D)
I too have three 1100's that I love as well Happy. 12 ga, 20 ga and 410 bore.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tootall75 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I have had my .270 for just over a year and that sucker is a tack driver!! I have yet to take any game with it but when I take it to the range I salivate at it's accuracy..pretty good for a factory rifle (Savage Model 111). I have a question and hope some of you will weigh in...I was talking this past hunting season about how much I do love the .270 but wouldn't mind having a 30.06 for moose. Some of my camp buddies said a .270 will do the job on a moose and some said it would be better to have a 30.06....what say you my friends??

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Dave, though it may not be much, it is true you can squeeze a bit more accuracy out of a wsm then a standard .270. is this assumption correct?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

the only reason iw ould get a .270 WSM is for the S i also have t-rex arms. oh well my 300 savage seems to work just fine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

OFF TOPIC:
I'm afraid few will pay attention to this because this is tacti-cool news, but John Noveske, who built some of the most accurate ARs in recent years (as a "builder" he used parts made by other companies, but he made the barrels, he used to work at Pac-Nor or something) has died in an automobile accident. The Geiselle family, who build their namesake triggers for the AR market, are producing a Noveske Memorial Trigger to honor Mr. Noveske.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fordman155 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

If the 270 Win works for you, go with it. If you get a 270 WSM and it works for you, go with it. Comparing X chambering vs Y chambering of the same caliber is good mind candy, but it comes down to what level of accuracy or cost are you willing to go to in order to achieve your goals. I had a 270 Win, but I sold it when I got a 280 Rem that is a semi-custom rifle. I still want a 270 Win in a Model 70 Sporter because it is a classic American rifle. In my opinion, you don't call a rifle model a "classic" without it first being very good.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WAM - Action length isn't much of a factor for me in bolt guns, unless I just want a shorter throw. It matters greatly in levers and semi-autos. I like levers. If I could ever get the feel for bolt guns, I might still choose a short action cartridge - Preference. Reality, derived from ballistic tables, shows that there isn't much of a difference between most big game calibers inside of 200 yds. Most people shoot at this distance. This is of course based on my own review. Pick what you like. Not much of a difference between them unless you compare the high end of the range to the low end.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from HogBlog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I feel like the key to the comparison has been mentioned here a few times, but not necessarily highlighted... finding ammo for the WSM generally can be a challenge. It's not impossible, and of the short-mags out there, .270WSM seems to be the most common, but it can sure be hard to find...especially if you're not a fan of the Accubond or Ballistic Tip.

I've got the .325wsm that I absolutely love, but I'm pretty well relegated to handloads, especially for hunting in the lead-free zones in CA.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My WSM isn't a problem for me because I haven't used a factorty load for over 35 years. I had to wait for a month in the beginning to get some 300WSM brass to load but now it is readily available in all of the supply houses. Around my neck of the woods 300WSM shells are on all the shelves of the sporting goods stores and even the Mom and Pop stores. My buddy has a Rem. 300 SAUM and if you don't load for it you are in big trouble because the Winchester WSM's buryed the Remington short action ultra magnums. I found him 100 empty cases at $70.00. The only reason he has it is because a guy practically gave it away and he couldn't pass up the deal. I like short guns and it may be small but short actions are somewhat shorter than their long action counterparts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sarge & Hog,

Interesting comments on ammo availability. I was lucky to find some boxes of Fed 14gr Accubonds at the LGS for $31. I was amazed and gobbled them up, thus putting off my need to reload for a couple years. I found that in CO I can find 300 WSM in almost any town, but not 270 WSM. I have to make sure I find it in the Denver metro area before I head anywhere. 300 WSM seems big out here, especially for Elk. It'd be interesting to see info on where each is popular. FYI...I never see 7mm WSM.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

spuddog,
Here in the mountains of eastern WV where I am the 300WSM is extremely popular. You may see a 270WSM occasionally and I haven't seen a 7MMWSM for years. I can't explain why the 300WSM became so popular here but alot of people seem to like short action light rifles which might explain some of it, plus it is just a good cartridge. I had a 300 Win Mag once but I wouldn't trade my 300WSM for a 300 Win Mag on a bet.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Let me see if I can get this out with any alacrity!
I started with a .30-30. Years of reading Cactus Jack had me yearning for the coveted (in MY mind!) .270 Win! Sure enough, after a couple of failed trade attemps, the "blessed" event occured and I became the proud possessor of one Parker Hale bolt gun in the enviable chambering of .270 Win! I've attempted many different calibers since, but always returned to the .270!

WAM posted, on the Answer section about the age of many current chamberings.
Yes, technological advancements give us cleaner propellants, better barrels and bullet designs and materials....BUT....
one thing seems to remain constant!
Regardless of diameter, a projectile of sufficient weight, accurately delivered to a desired target at a respectable speed (3000 +/- fps) will render said target to table fare quite admirably!
While the "charcoal" burners of yore were extremely capable of slaying assorted beasties, it didn't stop there! Man's desire to rule other men led to the development of the "self contained" cartridge. From it's inception in the early 1800's until,say, 1906 (.30-'06 Springfield?) ammo improved. Since that time (ABOUT 1906 +/-), the "cartridge" itself has changed VERY little.
A muzzle velocity of 3 grand is still respectable AND "very" capable of taking today's "improved" (?) game animals.
Had technology in the "cartridge" field progressed at the same rate in the hundred years "after" 1906 as it did in the hundred years "prior" to 1906, would we now be seeing 5000 fps muzzle velocities?
The current technology in use today is still acceptable, and capable. What the future holds, who knows?
I do know this!
I shoot a .270 Win I handload for that delivers a Sierra 130gr BTSP down range at about 2900 fps (+/-) and still slays to the same degree of death as a .50Bmg or a .17 HRM.

Thutty naught six, thutty-thutty, .22LR or .460 Wby Mag! Hunnerd year old technology is just as deadly today as the day of it's concept approximately 200 years ago and has advanced very little!
Amazing, huh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Let me see if I can get this out with any alacrity!
I started with a .30-30. Years of reading Cactus Jack had me yearning for the coveted (in MY mind!) .270 Win! Sure enough, after a couple of failed trade attemps, the "blessed" event occured and I became the proud possessor of one Parker Hale bolt gun in the enviable chambering of .270 Win! I've attempted many different calibers since, but always returned to the .270!

WAM posted, on the Answer section about the age of many current chamberings.
Yes, technological advancements give us cleaner propellants, better barrels and bullet designs and materials....BUT....
one thing seems to remain constant!
Regardless of diameter, a projectile of sufficient weight, accurately delivered to a desired target at a respectable speed (3000 +/- fps) will render said target to table fare quite admirably!
While the "charcoal" burners of yore were extremely capable of slaying assorted beasties, it didn't stop there! Man's desire to rule other men led to the development of the "self contained" cartridge. From it's inception in the early 1800's until,say, 1906 (.30-'06 Springfield?) ammo improved. Since that time (ABOUT 1906 +/-), the "cartridge" itself has changed VERY little.
A muzzle velocity of 3 grand is still respectable AND "very" capable of taking today's "improved" (?) game animals.
Had technology in the "cartridge" field progressed at the same rate in the hundred years "after" 1906 as it did in the hundred years "prior" to 1906, would we now be seeing 5000 fps muzzle velocities?
The current technology in use today is still acceptable, and capable. What the future holds, who knows?
I do know this!
I shoot a .270 Win I handload for that delivers a Sierra 130gr BTSP down range at about 2900 fps (+/-) and still slays to the same degree of death as a .50Bmg or a .17 HRM.

Thutty naught six, thutty-thutty, .22LR or .460 Wby Mag! Hunnerd year old technology is just as deadly today as the day of it's concept approximately 200 years ago and has advanced very little!
Amazing, huh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Yeah Leupold changed everything in 2002... they quit making the Vari-X 2 and started making the VX-2 and VX-1 which I thought were both of lower quality than the old Vari-X models. The Rifleman series they make now is even worse, I think it came along in 2008 after they bought Redfield.

The Vari-X 2's were really good and I remember when they phased them out they had a stack at Bass Pro $30 off for $189... I wish I had bought three or four, I did get one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

My use of homonyms continues to be atrocious and never jumps out at me until after I submit a post. My apologies to all.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

WAM & DrRalph! I don't know about exact dates, but you did make me go back to the closet! LOL!! You're quite correct! I rigged out the rifle in 1976! Since then, I shoot it, clean it and check "zero" each fall! Yep! It's a Leupold Vari-X II rather than the VX-I as stated ..
The scope, brand spanking new, set me back $98! The gun only cost around $250! My dad was appalled at what I'd spent on a gun! LOL!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Yep, that Vari-X II is probable a better scope than a VX-1 anyway!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Safado wrote 1 year 12 weeks ago

My question is besides the short action; what does a .270 WSM do that a .270 Weatherby Magnum can't do?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from missedit wrote 1 year 2 weeks ago

270 IS RIGHT BEHIND 30.06 BOTH GREAT RIFLES!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tyke wrote 30 weeks 6 days ago

Living in the UK our number of outlets selling ammunition is far lower & far more regulated that you are are blessed with across most of the US.
Accordingly it pays to keep to pretty standard chamberings if you want to be able to buy factory ammunition at the nearest gun shop (which may be some distance away).
I chose a .243 win for smaller deer & foxes, very popular here as a woodland roe deer cartridge as they usually weigh in around 50 lbs, & a .270 win for longer range hill work & larger species where I want bait more "clout".
The most popular larger cartridge is the .308 win but I figured this was too close in nature to the .243 & the flatter shooting .270 would give me the bigger spread in terms of performance between the two. Also the physical differences between the rounds would avoid a low light level mix up where a .243 accidentally gets fired through a .308 ( I presume you can't close the bolt if you try shoving a .308 into a .243 chamber - that would produce a much more significant effect!).
To be honest, using 100 trainers in the .243 I have taken big red stags, & I've shot roe with the .270 simply because that was what I was carrying at the time; the .270 was a bit harder in terms of meat loss on a little roe & really good shot placement in needed with the .243 on a big red or Sika stag - but both get the job done, just not as efficiently as the other in these role reversal situations.
For our UK species the .270 win is as much as is needed for deer, the only circumstances where anything extra may be required would be for wild boar ( although the .270 is legal for these & I'm told works just fine with a heavier & strongly constructed bullet) but this may be better served by a larger caliber of .30 or above, rather than a slightly faster moving .270 WSM - especially as these are usually in woodland & the round risks encountering twigs etc on its' way to "makin' bacon".
I use 130 grains for open ground work for the flatter trajectory but still have some Federal 150 round nose left which are superb for big fallow bucks or red/ Sika stags in the woods as generally they don't run any where when you hit them with these so extraction is much easier - this is relatively short range stuff of 100 yds or less so the greater bullet drop etc isn't an issue in these circumstances & it drops a deer like a lightening strike!
I have no doubt that for full time hill use the WSM would be better, allowing a stronger, heavier bullet to be launched at the same trajectory as the .270 Win propels the .130 grainer, but the lack of availability over here & the reduced choice of bullet weight/ types if the shop did carry any means that for me it is a non starter. If you re-load it may be different, but for 99% of your shots you will never need the extra energy & for that other 1% you have to put up with additional recoil, noise & reloading costs on every shot.
Also because of the supply issues the re sale value of the WSM will be less than the more widely available .270 win.
I really wish we had your level of availability though!

Regards, Tyke.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 268bull wrote 28 weeks 4 hours ago

I was sold on the .270 with the first whitetail I shot with it in 1976. Had to have one of my own. Bought a used one in 1977. Have hunted exclusively Blacktails and Roosevelt elk since with it. I could not have asked for any more out of a rifle than I have gotten from My Rem. 760. While it is true, I've never had to take longer than a 75, 80 yd. shot on an elk, ( 130 yds.on a blktail. )that old rifle has been as reliable and trustworthy as a dedicated rabbit hound. While I've never shot a .270 WSM., believe me, I've never found any pleasure ( in my shoulder )in sighting in my model 760, .270 either. I've subjected it to some of the harshest conditions and situations, and it's never let me down. Here's to the Remington 760, .270!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Mcdonald wrote 16 weeks 4 days ago

Well good thing we have new ammunition advances. Otherwise no one would have a .270 or 30.06. We would all be using bows and arrows and spears. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bret Bunderson wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Mr.Petzal,
I respectfully agree to disagree. A gentleman looks at all the facts before one should write about the good old boys calibers and why it's better. If we wanted to talk about the cartridge that has taken more game in North America it would be a 30-06. Fact is the Remington, Winchester,Ruger,Weatherby,& Kimber who by the way makes a custom action to take full advantage of the .270wsm all know that cartridge is superior in accuracy and ballistics.
If we keep pounding out the same old cartridges will technology advance?
Your logic was based on cost and that's about it.
I like you have hunted with the .270 wsm in a Weatherby Vanguard for about ten years now and no way is it an apples to apples comparison to a .270.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Fuji vs Honey Crisp apples? WGAFF? It is sleeting outside and I am trying to figure out how I can afford to go elk hunting this year, upgrade my 4X4, build a dream 338 Lapua Mannlicher, and keep my sanity while working in Forensics at the formerly known Arkansas Insane Asylum. Cheers Dave, flannels back and so are you, sort of.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from moxiaomi88629 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Thank you everyone focusing Home www.lilydating.com I friends

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from HuntItAll wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

1) If it is your first rifle and you only can afford 1, get the 270.

2) If you primarily hunt out west, flatter is ALWAYS better.

3) If you can handle the extra weight while hiking with it all day, the longer barrel is better. (See #2)

4) That elk is not going to be any less dead if you're accurate with whatever choice you make.

Good Hunting.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs