RE: 270 WSM.
 

I like the new short action magnums, and will eventually get a .300 Short Rem. It seems that between a choice of a .270 or a .284 short action magnum, I'd opt for the .284 because it has a much better selection of bullets for handloading. The .270 WSM to me seems overbore, very similar to the 6.5 Rem Mag, only .006 difference in bullet dia., but with a larger case. It sure would be flat, and I guess if you put 2,000 rounds through it and burned the throat out of it, you could always have it rebarreled to a .284 or .30 cal.

RE: 270 WSM.
 

I haven't decided on them yet. At first when I heard about them I really wanted one in 270WSM, but I have 2 270's now and they have never failed in any way so why fix it if it aint broke?

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: 270 WSM.
 

Otis, I don't hate the 270WSM anymore than I dislike any other 270 round. What I do dislike is all the hype the WSM cartridges are getting and the flat out creative ballistics that Winchester is releasing. It is already being said of the 300WSM that the velocities Winchester's factory load data quoted can not be reproduced out of any factory rifle using accepted pressures. I am sure the same will hold true for the rest of the WSMs. Creative marketing is one thing, dishonesty is something else. Out of all the WSMs I think the 270WSM may have the hardest time carving out a niche for itself. One, lack of bullet selection, two, Jack O' Conner isn't around to make it sound like God's gift to shooters.

BTW, I in no way feel my current choices for rifles are in any way inferior to the WSMs. On the contrary, I would put my 300 Win Mag up against the 300 WSM any day.

RE: 270 WSM.
 

i think they r great, i dont think im being sucked n2 anything resembling "marketing" i read the same ballistic tables everyone else does and c no reason 2 beleive one cartriges ballistics and not another simply because its new. obviously these cartriges should not compare to the "ultra mags" and weatherbys, but they come surprisingly close. they should be compared to their parent cases and other short action calibers, short action being the key word. i fired a friends brand new .300WSM sighting his scope in. easily 5 pounds lighter than mine, and shot a couple of groups of 3 that would fit in my thumbnail at 100 yds from a factory rifle! understandibly most ballistics wont b duplicated n the field because most hunters dont carry 28"-26" barrels hunting, i havent seen the tables for the .270WSM or 7mmWSM yet, but trusting the ballistic tables for the 300WSM, it comes close enough for the girls i go with. even after calming down...its still my opinion. we all got one.

RE: 270 WSM.
 

just give me an '06

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: 270 WSM.
 

I'm not too impressed with the new short magnums, from either Rem. or Win. Like otis said, magnums should be used for large game, not deer sized game. I bet that a competant handloader could make a 30-06 (or any caliber derived from it, .270,.280 in this case) outperform the WSM's and RUSA's in their respective calibers with bullets on the heavy end of the scale. It would seem to me that with a cartridge that short, a heavy-for-caliber bullet will have to be seated so deep that it will take away a good chunk of powder capacity. Now with bullets that are suited for smaller game, 130gr. .270, 140 gr. .280, and 150 & 165 gr., .30, I'm sure the Short mags will outperform. But I'm not a fan of a bullet that will blow up immediately on impact, and some bullets will at these velocities. I'll just stick with the cartridge I know and trust, .30-06

RE: 270 WSM.
 

I did some comparisons using the Point Blank program and was not impressed.
270Win 130gr bullet 3050fps 250yd zero bullet hits 3in high at 150yds and 3.25in low at 300yds.
270WSM 130gr bullet 3275fps 250yd zero bullet hits 2.25in high at 150yds and 3in low at 300 yds.
I would not run out and trade my old .270 for a WSM unless it was a 7mm or 300

RE: 270 WSM.
 

We'll just have to wait and see!