rifle: 270

Handloader · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

When introduced, the WSM series touted better accuracy, higher velocity and reduced recoil. The WSSMs soon followed, claiming the same advantages. Most WSSMs have disappeared and the WSMs are selling in reduced numbers. The Remington RSAUMs have all but been discontinued. The 300 WSM seems to be doing reasonably well and can actually show minor velocity improvements over the .30-06.

The trend has run its full course with most hunters reverting to standard cartridges for all the reasons mentioned in the previous posts on this thread. For any type of realistic hunting, any perceived advantage of the WSM family is largely a figment of the immagination. Moreover, the advent of technologically advanced bullets has marginalized any these newly introduced magnums as well as some of the traditional magnums when compared to the standard cartridges in .270, .280 or .30 caliber.

A good comparison of cartridge acceptance is the RCBS die sales figures which, year to year, shows what reloaded cartridges are gaining or loosing popularity amongst shooters. Standard cartridges remain the backbone of those sales. Cartridge selection for new firearms again confirms this trend. Reinventing the wheel, ala Winchester and Remington short magnums has been a predictable sales disappointment.

The same trend is observable in handguns with a significant drop in .460 and .500 S&W sales and the pending marketing failure of the .327 Fed Mag.

It's as if new hunters are seeking some magic tech advantage to compensate for lack of skill. Most of those attracted to the new cartridges tend to be new to the shooting sports, at least at our gunshop, whereas, again, standard cartridges are booming (so to speak).

Kudos to common sense.

Elvis · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:35 am Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

I admit I love my standard .270 if I point it right it does the biz no problem. but then we drive a 1600cc station wagon thats cheap to run and doesnt break down and easy to drive. I guess we could drive a hummer if we wanted to spend a fortune to get one and parking would be fun. a farari or porsh would be nice to. naa who am I kidding I like simple and reliable . I hope the comparison works.

whittling · Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

I like to stick to old and proved guns and cartridges .

glockman55 · Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:45 am Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

.270 win. or the .280 are great all around cal. If you want a short action look at the .308. Good Luck in your choice.

slimjim · Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

I always wanted to have a 270 since I was a kid but never "pulled the trigger". This past Christmas, I finally said it was past time to get one so sold a couple rifles to make room in the safe and to please the wife. I studied the .270 WIN and .270 WSM. I found with the lighter 110gr bullets, neither has an apparent performance advantage. With the heavier 150gr bullets, a shooter could gain up 100 fps or more velocity advantage with the WSM. However, I plan to hunt with the light 110gr Barnes TTSX so I went with the .270 WIN. I already have several 110gr loads with velocities in excess of 3400 fps in a 22.75” barrel. Comparing Barnes' loading manual, one can see the .270 WIN is more efficient with the lighter bullets.

270 WIN IMR4350 57.5 3287 fps 60.5 3460 fps
270 WSM IMR4350 63.0 3277 fps 67.5 3552 fps

At the low end, the 270 WIN had 10 fps more velocity with 5.5gr less powder. At the max end, the 270 WSM had 90 fps more with 7.5 additional grains of powder.

If you look at data from the range, any advantage the 270 WSM has is harder to find. The 110gr TTSX data from G&A Reloading:
The 270 WSM for the 270 WSM showed velocities from 3325 fps to 3384 fps. My 270 WIN Tikka T3 Lite is launching the 110gr TTSX at 3450 fps.

For my longer range shooting, I'm using Berger's 150 VLD. The velocity results list in G&A for 150 bullets loads range from 2842 to 3092 fps. I'm getting 3000 fps with my 150 VLDs with 51.0 of IMR4350.

Maybe my 270 WIN Tikka just has a good barrel on it but I'm not seeing the advantage of the WSM in 270 and its extra cost for compoents and powder. I think the .270 WSM Comes Up Short (just had to use the pun).

English Mike · Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

Handloader wrote:

The 300 WSM seems to be doing reasonably well and can actually show minor velocity improvements over the .30-06.

I wouldn't call a minimum 10% increase in velocity minor myself, plus the WSM has shown itself to be consistently more accurate than the 30-06, probably due to the superior qualities of a short, fat case.
The reduced recoil claim IS BS though.

Teknys · Member Joined: Oct 23, 2008 Posts: 29 Location: Idaho

I had a .270 Win and now own a .270 WSM. Shot factory ammo out the "std" but reload my own for the WSM. I bought the WSM to be just a little different than all the 270s out there. I can push a 130 Scirroco at 3250 and have shot both Whitetails and Elk with it.
Looking at the Reloading manuals and comparing "this velocity to that" ... I've never been right on. Usually slower and once in a while faster. For kicks I shot a 300WSM through the chrono with two different guns and same barrel length. almost 50fps diffferent.

Like most have implied, do you think there is an animal that could tell the difference between a "Std" 270 to WSM?
Don't get caught up in the media hype or the "expert" opinions from the mags.
Their has been some sensible advice from the site.
Either can/will make you happy.

sniper · Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

By what stretch of the imagination would anyone believe the "plain vanilla" .270 Winchester is somehow lacking? ROFL

Despite Saint Elmer's rantings that it would make a "damned adequate coyote rifle", it has done an excellent job since it was introduced a long time ago.

Seems like Jack O'connor killed a trainload of beasties with one, and an old-timey Alaskan game warden named Hosea Sarber used it regularly for Brown Bears, and he died of old age.

Even Jeff Cooper admitted that the .270 and 150 gr. bullets were good for Africa.

My question for the short, fat magnums has always been "Why?" I see they are waning in popularity, because in the real world, they don't do much, if anything the old standards can't do, except burn more powder for very little return.

That goes for the "old technology... 30-30, 30-06, .308, .243, 6.5X55 Swede, 7 MM Mauser, 7mm Magnum, .303 Enfield, .300Savage, 22-250. and on and on... Cool

Handloader · Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: rifle: 270

Time has lapsed since Elmer and Jack were at it with each other. In the interim, the technology of bullets and powder have advanced to the point that the distinctions between these two bard's positions has blurred somewhat.

Inexpensive chronographs have given us the ability to see what our rifles and loads are doing without comment from books or articles. We have seen more bonded bullets, eventhough, Speer Hot Cores have been around a goodly length of time. Premium bullets for .30 caliber and smaller have realigned the types of cartridges suited for big game. All of this has resulted in a resurgence of standard cartridges, although, the Ultra Mag crowd still believes the hype of their overbore boomers.

-----------

"The elk died in its tracks." . . . say, don't all elk die in their tracks?