.270 WSM vs. .270

[10isnotenough]

I was looking at the published factory info for this new cartridge and comparing to a regular .270. If I compare the existing .270 loads from Hornady (lite magnum) to the new WSM variety, I don't see much of a difference except at the 150 grain level where there seems to be a extra 150 ft/sec available. I know that isn't real significant but it is a little flatter.

I guess I'm wondering if the same technology that Hornady uses in their lite magnum loads was applied to the new WSM cartidges will we see that gap widen? Do you feel that it is likely that such a load will come out?

If not, I don't see the point of WSM since you currently have quite a bit better variety in .270 and the lite magnums are pretty close in most weights. I don't put much weight in "Shorter Actions" for practical purposes.

What do you all think?

Thanks in advance

 

[cratz2]

The way I see it, if you want a short fat little cartridge that offers approx 2% improvement with the most popular 130 Gr loading, then go for the WSM. That'll get you about another 5 yards of point blank range.

On the other hand, if you want to go with one of the 'Golden Child' cartridges in the 20th Century, a cartridge that has taken every game in North American and has endless proven itself in every major game continent and that has a wide variety of excellent factory ammo in every location that sells ammo, go with the 270 Winchester.

May not be exciting, your friends probably won't gather around as you tell then how much superior your new rifle is to theirs but if you want to actually take game, does this stuff matter?

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

A difference of 150fps with a 150gn bullet is still nothing to sneeze at. Talk about penetration.

Thinking it comes down to if you already own a .270 or not already----If I already had a .270 Win---I'd just buy Light Mags and be on my merry way.

But if I didn't have a .270 of any sort---the .270 WSM would be the way to go---esp in a Browning A-Bolt---VERY light and handy.

Not positive on this---but pretty sure that more factory loadings for the WSM are coming out too.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

I'll stay with my "Golden Child".............. Absolutely puts 'em where I want 'em EVERY TIME !!!!! Maybe the occasional fifth shot flyer.......No Biggie.

 

[cratz2]

I certainly didn't mean to demean the progess that has been made with 150 gr loads, just that at my local shop, 130 Gr outsells all other weights combined about 8 to 1 and on hand are three different 130 Gr loadable bullets while the other weights are old and covered with dust.

Point is, with the overwhelmingly popular 130 Gr loads, the WSM only outclasses the old Winchester by about 50 fps. And there is probably more rifle to rifle variation than that in either cartridge. Unless you really really need the shortest possible rifle, I just can't opting for the WSM over the universal worldwide popularity of the Great .270 Winchester.

And before anyone tells me the virtues of the heavier loadings, I know... I've tried them. I use them. It is a very versatile cartridge. Just most people use the 130 Gr bullsts most of the time. If you live in Alaska or Montana or North Dakota, your mileage will probably vary.

 

[labgrade]

I've yet to start expolring hard core re the short fatties.

Agree with above comments.

Where I can see an advantage is the platform itself might allow for some weight savings & that's where I'd concentrate my 'splorings.

Shooting a short-barreled .308 M7 these days as my "mostly gun" & could see "having to get" a fatty to stay in same weight range of the rifle, but getting substantial ballistic enhancements.

Other than that, I'm, still killing elk with essentionally a .300 Savage.

 

[Art Eatman]

A general comment: The shorties allow for short actions, which means a bit stiffer package and possibly a tad better accuracy. And, of course, lighter weight.

Now: The more efficient cartridge cases don't lose as much velocity per inch of barrel as do the longer cases. Compare, for instance, the .308 and .30-'06. The latter loses some 75 ft/sec/inch, and functions best in a 24" or 26" barrel. The .308 loses maybe 50 ft/sec/inch, and does quite well in a 22" barrel.

Remember that a lot of published data from the manufacturers, on their ammo, is often from 24" or 26" barrels. And what barrel lengths do you see on the shelves at the gun stores?

If I didn't already have a ton of toys, and were just starting out, I'd go the short magnum route. They'd offer a lighter and handier package for similar--if not a bit better--ballistics.

Art

 

[Zorro]

And this is Superior to a 7MM Remington Magnum in what respect?



I think a .270 Weatherby Magnum might be a better buy for flatest shooting.

 

[cratz2]

And this is Superior to a 7MM Remington Magnum in what respect?

???????

Shorter action... Lighter rifle... Less recoil...

Who said anything about 7mm?

 

[Marshall]

I didn't see anyone say anything about a 7MM?

However, the 7MM WSM is a tad superior to the standard 7MM Mag., just as the 300WSM is to the 300 Win Mag.

The WSM cartidges all hold the same basic benefits and weaknesses, if any, to their long action parent.

And yes, the Weatherby Mags still out perform the new WSM's, with the exception of the 270 Wby Mag. The 270WSM nips it in three categories, Velocity(fps), Energy(ft.lb.) and Trajectory. It's my belief the short fatties are the future in rifle ammo. Of course ammo manufacturers will always offer both but, new and upgraded performances are going to be geared toward these short fat cartridges. Also, we are going to have more of these new cartridges available in different calibers pretty soon.