270 win or 270 wsm?

[Mach1]

I'm looking at possibly getting a new rifle in the upcoming months (that is if I can sell a couple things at home) and want to get a gun in a caliber that will be versatile. We can't use them for deer hunting here, but I'd like to get one to shoot coyotes and something that I can use out west to hunt antelope, mulies, etc. if I ever get the chance. I've talked to many people that say go with a .270. I notice that there's the 270 win and the 270 wsm. What would be my best bet to go with for the situations I've mentioned?

[mailmanmark]

.270

For what you have stated I would opt for the standard .270

Assuming that you will be using factory ammo, ammo availability is much better for the .270 (cheaper also) than the .270 wsm.

Either caliber is a win/win situation. Good luck.

[toddyboman]

I personally think the ballistics for the 270 wsm are better...so it should out perform the standard 270. But both will work just fine for mulies and lopes out west;).....Oh and that poor yote is going to really enjoy it :D:D

[johnf]

If your shooting coyotees as well as deer sized game I would cosider the 25-06 also. It's very flat shooting with plenty power, and you can load down for varmits.

[wtnhunt]

Never hunted mulies or antelopes, but have killed quite a few yotes and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 deer with the .270 win over the past 13 years or so. For ammo price and availabilty would probably go with the .270 win if it were me.

[Strut10]

The .270 WSM is clearly a superior round in terms of raw performance. It's basically a factor of 15%. The .270 WSM puts 15% more energy on target at all reasonable hunting distances (500 yuards and under). The .270 WSM also shoots 15% flatter than the standard .270 Win, dropping 7" less at 500 yards.

The only downside (if you wish to look at it that way) is that factory ammo will cost more and be a little less readily available. Our local Wally-World does carry .270 WSM as does the general "what-not" store next to it. Wouldn't make a hill of beans difference if you reload.

I've always thought the .270 WSM would make a real fun round to play with.........especially in a super, ultra-light mountain gun.

[Mach1]

Oh and that poor yote is going to really enjoy it :D:D

The yote my brother shot with his 30/06 at 40 yds really enjoyed getting his opposite shoulder blown out. :D

[Mach1]

What's the recoil like with both calibers? How does it compare with a .50cal ML with 100gr of powder pushing a 250gr bullet?

Also what size scope would be good? Basic 3-9x40 or something a little bigger (I think my brother has a 6-18x50 on his 30/06)? Standard crosshairs or BDC reticle?

[Strut10]

Don't know what the recoil is like on such a ML setup. I'm guessing it's be more than the .270 WSM.

The .270 WSM shooting a 140 gr. bullet at 3200 fps recoils only very slightly more than a 30-06 in a rifle of the same weight shooting a 150 gr. bullet at 3050 fps. you probably could not tell the difference between the two.

[wtnhunt]

What's the recoil like with both calibers? How does it compare with a .50cal ML with 100gr of powder pushing a 250gr bullet?

Also what size scope would be good? Basic 3-9x40 or something a little bigger (I think my brother has a 6-18x50 on his 30/06)? Standard crosshairs or BDC reticle?

Using 120 grains of pyro and 240 grain sabots in the ml, the recoil from my .270 is maybe just a little more, really not a lot of difference. Cannot say for the .270wsm.

I use 3-9X40 on most of my rifles, debating what to top off my new 7 mag with since it will be geared for out west hunting. Considering a 4.5-14X50. What type hunting you intend should determine your scope.

The only rifle I have currently with a ballistic drop type reticle is my AR, which has the burris bplex reticle, really does not need it. At one time had that scope on my .270 and really did not see the need in the graduated reticles since my shots are not typically over 250 yards. The burris is a pretty good scope, the nikon is a bit brighter in my opinion, which was the reason for the swap.

[camocop]

go with the .270 wsm. everyone knows deer can only be killed with a magnum

[FireStrut]

I have the .270wsm and I just love this rifle, its a Browning A-Bolt.

[woodshed]

I have a Winch. Model 70 in 270 WSM with a Nikon scope. Both are awesome!! The WSM is more expensive than standard 270, which is an issue for me. (I'm a cheap arse!)

It recoils bit more than my ML'er. I shoot the same combo you mentioned. The recoil is sharper and quicker to punch but prob. about the same force. (if that makes sense at all) It's absolutely nothing like a turkey load though.

I have a burris scope with BDC on the ML'er. I don't think it's as nice as a Nikon Monarch for about the same price.

With all this said,,, I would chose the 270 WSM with a Nikon scope.

[woodshed]

On another thought. If you are long range shooting, definately WSM. If you are 300 or less like midwest whitetail,, 270 win. for the cheaper price.

[Guest Colorado Bob]

Get the 270 Winchester. It's been doing it for longer than you & I have been alive. Jack O'Connor used it for everything up to & including grizzly.

I honestly think the WSM craze is dying out. I think only a few will survive & the 270WSM is a tossup IMO.

Don't re-invent the wheel---get the tried & true. 270 Win. CB

[iron buck]

I would take the 270 win over the WSM every time. Less powder....less recoil....less cost & it will yield the same results.

[Leo]

The .270 WSM is clearly a superior round in terms of raw performance. It's basically a factor of 15%. The .270 WSM puts 15% more energy on target at all reasonable hunting distances (500 yuards and under). The .270 WSM also shoots 15% flatter than the standard .270 Win, dropping 7" less at 500 yards.

The only downside (if you wish to look at it that way) is that factory ammo will cost more and be a little less readily available. Our local Wally-World does carry .270 WSM as does the general "what-not" store next to it. Wouldn't make a hill of beans difference if you reload.

I've always thought the .270 WSM would make a real fun round to play with.........especially in a super, ultra-light mountain gun.

That pretty much covers it.

The trajectory difference is 7 inches at 500yds. That's a significant difference at that range. But at average hunting ranges (under 300yds) the difference is practically negligible. At 200 yds the difference between the two is only around 0.5 inch. On a 1/4moa adjustment scope that's just one click!

If you need more energy delivered further down range then the 270WSM is the way to go. If your hunting area requires you to anchor animals as close to the point of impact as possible, then more energy really helps.

Examples: The hit game animal is a threat to jump off a cliff, exit land you can legally hunt or jump into a swift moving river. If those are possibilities than the more energy you can throw at the game animal the better your recovery chances are. Overkilled animals seem to always make it to the freezer.

The trajectory difference out to 300yds, however isn't really enough to worry about.

To me the decision is based more on how much energy you need to swiftly anchor the animal in a recoverable area than trajectory difference.

[Mach1]

Thanks for all the great info guys. I'll probably go with the .270 win for these reasons: 1) ammo availabilty & cost, 2) my shooting distances probably won't be over 300 yds where I'll be using the gun primarily (coyotes in IL), 3) since we can't use rifles to hunt deer around here, a super high priced rifle & ammo isn't really needed and wouldn't get as much use as it would in other states.

I'm leaning toward a Remington 700 SPS Stainless and topping it with a 3-9x40 Nikon Pro Staff scope (maybe silver scope, rings, and bases). Neither are the highest priced, but not the lowest either. Won't break my bank and like I said above, I can't justify getting the top of the line rifle and scope because of the limited use it would get. My brother has a 700 SPS in 30/06 that's been a really good gun and it feels pretty good in my hands.