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!

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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??

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

270 IS RIGHT BEHIND 30.06 BOTH GREAT RIFLES!!!