270 WSM or 300WSM?

[actionshooter]

I'm gonna buy a new Tikka T3 lite soon and I want a 7WSM but they don't make it. I'm looking at using the rifle as my main muley gun, gonna retire the older, heavy Winchester M70 in .300WM I have used for years. I wont hesitate to shoot 3-400 yards, so take that into consideration.

 Just looking for opinions on the 2 calibers and why.

[ICEMAN]

Just curious, why the short magnums...?

[MountainWalk]

i agree with iceman,,, why..... of the two, i would take the 300... you have already shot it. so you know how it behaves

[Red Dawg]

I would take the 270 wsm any day. The ballistics are great and it is a little different than norm caliber. Why use it. Because they are bad ass. Great killer in a short action.

[ICEMAN]

Actually, I am not really up to speed on why folks enjoy the shorty's. I have no experience with them. The rounds look cool, but I was unsure if "balistically" they perform any better than a traditional round. Just curious...

[Red Dawg]

The 300 is nearly identical and the 270wsm is much better than the traditional one.

[MountainWalk]

ive only had dealings with two short action mags, both 270... mine is a fairly good all around rifle,  my pals is identical to mine and by far more accurate..   but i do prefer a trad. loading.  seems like both have balky feeding.. dont know if sm's  come in controlled round feed rifles...

i just think there are better more sensible choices out there.. shoot a box of 270wsm's runs pretty close to some of my 338 shells

[bobcat]

The only real difference I see between the two is the amount of recoil. A deer is going to be dead if hit with either one, makes absolutely no difference. If you prefer less recoil you might want the 270. If recoil doesn't matter to you then you might want the 300, just because it might be slightly better on elk if you ever use it for that. Another thing to think about is that the 300 WSM is much more popular than the 270 and it may be around longer, while the 270 may become obsolete, and if it does ammo may be difficult to find. If you reload it probably doesn't matter, but if not, the 300 would be the smarter choice in my opinion.

[bobcat]

The 300 is nearly identical and the 270wsm is much better than the traditional one.

I wouldn't say the 270 WSM is much better than the "traditional one." Sure it's maybe 200 feet per second faster but that extra velocity comes with the use of more powder and produces more recoil. And you're really not going to see any ballistic advantage until you get out beyond 400 yards. I know I don't feel handicapped in the least with my "traditional" 270 and I'd prefer to not have any more recoil than it already has.

[MountainWalk]

on the off chance that i dont grab the 338 or the 06,, i grab my traditional 270. the short 270 stays at home with the rest of the gang..

bottom line,, i dont feel a huge need to get over 3000fps,, i really like things between 2600-2800 feet per second.. dont like bullets flying apart at close ranges and i dont really need to buy premium bullets for deer hunting..
i agree, the 300sm will prolly outlive the 270sm... dont know what happened to the wssm's... golly thats a lot of "s's"....

[Red Dawg]

What I like about the 270wsm is the fact that you take one of the best bullet coefficients around and put a bit more pwder behind it. The 270 win is a spectacular gun but for this persons purpose, he wants a magnum. So he might want to shoot out past 400 yards. I am no gun expert but the 270wsm is a great caliber and just a little bit different. Both of my hunting partners shoot 300wsm and they are great killers also. But the 270wsm will do the same.

[Bofire]

For factory loads the 300 short mag and Win mag are about the same, mebbe a slight advantage to the short. BUT for reloaders the Win mag. has 7-10% more capacity. I know very little about the 270 short. I am a big fan of the standard 270.
Carl

[Tony 270WSM]

Although you don't ned a magnum for that hunting many of our gear choices are about what we want rather than need. So out of the two I would choose the 270. More than enough power, less recoil and a flatter trajectory at long range.

[Curly]

Go with the 270WSM.  You already have a 300WM, so you could use it if you ever go elk hunting.

Personally, I think the T3 lite is too light for chambering in the 300WSM.  I like a little heavier rifle for the 30 magnums to help reduce felt recoil.  But the 270WSM seems like it would be about right for that rifle.  I think 140gr Barnes TSX would be great in that cartridge.

[actionshooter]

I think the main reason the short mags were brought about is the weight factor, they use a beefed up short action instead of a long action. Thats a fair amount of weight saved, I have read an average of 1# over a long action mag of the same caliber.
 I don't need a short mag but I don't have one in the safe 
   
I'm an ounce counter b/c this will be used as a backpack rifle.
 I'm leaning to the 270WSM due to the ballistic coeficient, I don't go looking for long range shots but if one is presented and I can't get closer I will take the shot if the conditions are right.
 Thats a whole other topic thats been covered here in the past. 

[Intruder]

To some degree it's a flip of the coin.  Both are gonna be great out to 300-350yards.  If you're talking 400 yard shots though I think you're be a lil better off w/ the 300wsm.  Not that the 270 can't perform at those ranges but more that the 300's bullet weights are going to perform better.  Once you get over about 300yards I think you're pushing the envelope a little on the 270... especially if on bigger animals.

[archery288]

I personally would go with the 300 wsm... Just for the fact that you have a great variety of bullet weights for larger animals.  And in which case they will have more kinetic energy at longer ranges as well for knock down power.  Just my 

[Bofire]

 :)In the Tikkas all the actions are the same length. I have one in 300Win Mag and my brother has the 300 short mag in Tikkas, the recoil is not a big deal.
I have a few Tikkas.
Carl

[actionshooter]

:)In the Tikkas all the actions are the same length. I have one in 300Win Mag and my brother has the 300 short mag in Tikkas, the recoil is not a big deal.
I have a few Tikkas.
Carl

Ya carl thats a bummer about the Tikkas, long action is all thats offered.
 But a Tikka weighs 6.3# and cost $600, in comparison the Remington Alaskan Ti (Remingtons lightweight) weighs 6# and cost $2000

[FOsteology]

Of the two, I'd go .270WSM

However, initially you mentioned that you considered the 7mm WSM. Are you aware that it's available in the Kimber Montana? Weighs in at 6 1/4 lbs 

[actionshooter]

Thanks FO, I have been looking at the montana in 7wsm, they are tough to come by but there are some out there. They cost 2x as much but its still running through my head 

[Bofire]

and a Kimber 'might' shoot as good as a remington, neither are close to a Tikka.
LOL
sorry couldn't help my self
Carl

[actionshooter]

and a Kimber 'might' shoot as good as a remington, neither are close to a Tikka.
LOL
sorry couldn't help my self
Carl

The fact the Kimber might shoot like crap is an issue also. They don't have the best rep.

[FOsteology]

and a Kimber 'might' shoot as good as a remington, neither are close to a Tikka.
LOL
sorry couldn't help my self
Carl

The fact the Kimber might shoot like crap is an issue also. They don't have the best rep.

The Montana hands down is a MUCH better rifle than the Tikka. You actually get a lot of rifle for the $$. Nothing else on the factory market comes close.

A couple of issues are typically brought up when discussing the Montana..... feeding and accuracy.

I believe the feeding issues of a couple years ago have been resolved.

On accuracy.... honestly, I think some of it might be technique as some folks just don't shoot light weight rifles that well.

Plus, the receiver having thin walls, a pencil thin barrel.... the bedding needs to be just right.

I'd gamble on another Montana. If it didn't shoot well out of the box, for less than four bills Hill Country Rifles would square it away. Even with the extra $$ spent, it's still a lot of rifle for money.

[257 Wby Mag]

I'd go with a 270 too. And if I were spending Kimber $$$, I'd step up a couple more bills and get a Sako 85 Finlight.....

[bankwalker]

I'd go with a 270 too. And if I were spending Kimber $$$, I'd step up a couple more bills and get a Sako 85 Finlight.....

those finlights are awesome rifles. my budie has one and he wouldnt trade it for anything. i know ive try'd getting it many times lol

btw anyone know the wieght of the finlight? i have not been able to find those specs on it anywhere.

[MountainWalk]

i put more faith in a higher sectional density than a high ballisic coeffecient. the 300 beats teh 270

[actionshooter]

I'd go with a 270 too. And if I were spending Kimber $$$, I'd step up a couple more bills and get a Sako 85 Finlight.....

those finlights are awesome rifles. my budie has one and he wouldnt trade it for anything. i know ive try'd getting it many times lol

btw anyone know the wieght of the finlight? i have not been able to find those specs on it anywhere.

I looked it up one time and the finlights are actually a little heavier than the tikka T3 lite.

 As for the kimber montanas, They are everything I am looking for except for the bad reviews on accuracy. I have read so much bad press, there is NO way its coincidence or just all around poor shooting.

[mossback91]

I'd go with a 270 too. And if I were spending Kimber $$$, I'd step up a couple more bills and get a Sako 85 Finlight.....

those finlights are awesome rifles. my budie has one and he wouldnt trade it for anything. i know ive try'd getting it many times lol

btw anyone know the wieght of the finlight? i have not been able to find those specs on it anywhere.

I looked it up one time and the finlights are actually a little heavier than the tikka T3 lite.

 As for the kimber montanas, They are everything I am looking for except for the bad reviews on accuracy. I have read so much bad press, there is NO way its coincidence or just all around poor shooting.

Didnt you see the vid of BIgStick shooting at 700 yards with his?

[actionshooter]

  Thats funny
 I almost forgot about that guy 
 The deal with the montanas are they shoot really well or crappy, luck of the draw

[257 Wby Mag]

I'll put my faith in boolit going where it needs to go....

 The tikka kinda defeats the "short mag" theory, being they have the same length actions, the feeding problems will be non-existent with the the straight stack clip as well. My coyote buster is a T3 223, just can't like the way it fits, but I get by... Here's mine, homemade camo job, 3x9 Ziess....

[700xcr]

I have a Remington model 700xcr in 270wsm and my son has a Winchester model 70 stainless with synthetic stock. The 300wsm has more recoil for sure. The 270wsm is a pleasure to shoot. I am playing around with the 150gr. Berger VLD bullets with the BC of 0.545. Granted you can load a heavier bullet in the 300wsm. It really comes down to personal preference on what you will be hunting. Personally I would not be afraid to use the 270wsm on elk.

[Tony 270WSM]

The 270 will definitely take elk and mine will be on duty this fall. 140 Accubonds or 150 XP3s. Maybe a TSX.

Looked at the Sako, a very fine rifle. Heard nothing but good things about them.

[MountainWalk]

say tony.. how do those xp3's do for you? are they tough?  i do quite a bit of bullet testing with wet newspaper and phone books, but have yet to shoot the xps'. you like them?

[Tony 270WSM]

I'd love to tell you but haven't used them yet, only read numerous reports. Have had great results with Accubonds at close and long ranges and TSXs are proven bullets. But XP3s sound promising so want to try them out and see how they perform.

[MountainWalk]

i have a few 230 grain win fail safes that i adore, but im saving thoses since their the last ones that i can find.. ive used the accubond, its good, but still looking.. thought about the a frame, but dont know if they come in 250's. think i may settle with the norma oryx. all these will be for elk

for deer and bear i like plain old 200 grain power points

[bankwalker]

Thats funny
 I almost forgot about that guy 
 The deal with the montanas are they shoot really well or crappy, luck of the draw

yeah thats what made me turn away from them. they are everything i want in a rifle. but i dont want to take the chance and get a crappy one.

ill stick with my ruger...if i decide to trade my blackwidow to get it back from my buddie lol

other then that its gonna be a tikka t3 lite or remington mountain lss...

[Bofire]

William (Fosteology) is a great guy and quite knowledgable about rifles. but this time we gotta agree to disagree. I am not impressed with any of the Kimber rifles I have handled or shot. The Kimber I liked least is the Montana, the light weight some might like but I find it "out of balance" feeling.
Secondly, I will NOT put money into a new rifle, if it does not shoot well from the factory, it gets sold. Every Tikka I have fired shoots like crazy and they need nothing done. I was a Remington fan for years but when it got to the point of buying a new rifle, getting it bedded, trigger job etc, I quit buying them. Same reason I wont buy Ruger rifles.
Sako is super.
To your question, I'd go with the 300 for your use due to your range of 400 yards, I wont shoot that far, but if you can, I think a 180 or 200 grain at 400 yards is much more effective than a 130-150 grain.
By the way Fosteology shot my 300 mag Tikka T3 lite, if he comments, I am sure he will say, the recoil is not big deal.
Carl

[Antlershed]

To some degree it's a flip of the coin.  Both are gonna be great out to 300-350yards.  If you're talking 400 yard shots though I think you're be a lil better off w/ the 300wsm.  Not that the 270 can't perform at those ranges but more that the 300's bullet weights are going to perform better.  Once you get over about 300yards I think you're pushing the envelope a little on the 270... especially if on bigger animals.

If you can place your shot right where you want it, the .270 is fine. There was a guy on another board that dropped a bear in one shot with his .270 at 452 yards. It was a total custom rifle, but as long as the bullet hits where you want, its gonna go down. And, if you are going to be shooting those ranges, you better be able to hit where you want to. 

[FOsteology]

The Tikka is the LAST rifle I would consider for the WSM based cartridges simply due to the "one size fits all" action length.

The Tikka has no doubt earned a reputation for accuracy at an affordable price. The actions are very slick, they feed flawlessly, and have good triggers. Plus, they're light and balance well IMO.... however, after owning a few and handling/shooting several others, I simply couldn't warm up to the extensive use of plastic. The stock particularly exhibits too much flex....

Carl mentioned recoil is not bad..... that's subjective! I shoot mainly medium bores (.35 calibers) and up, so what feels light to me may feel like a donkey punch to someone else! lol
Plus, no fair throwing your .300WM T3 in the mix in regards to felt recoil.... your rifle had a braked!    lol


While I have not owned a Remington chambered in any of the WSM flavors, I have heard consistently that they typically exhibit feeding and extraction issues.

If I were in the market for a WSM and wasn't building, the Montana would get my money. Dealing with a simple recrown or bedding issue is no big deal.

[700xcr]

I did have a little problem with the Remington model 700xcr 270wsm in feeding but I fixed it with a Wyatts single stack box magazine. Now it feeds like butter. The problem is with Remington double stack factory magazine is that it cocks the cartridge out of the magazine at an angle. Then you would have to back off the bolt and slowly go back in with it. That was my only complaint with the rifle. Sure I loose one round out of the magazine but this gun is so accurate I don't care. Instead of three in the magazine now I have two.

[WDFW-SUX]

I have never owned a short mag because they don't have belts......im a belted mag fan 7mm rem mag, 7mm stw, all the Weatherby stuff, 338 win, 8mm, 375 HH, etc

[Tony 270WSM]

700XCR

What kind of groups are you getting?

[700xcr]

I am getting 1/2" groups at 100yds. with Factory Winchester 150gr. Power Point ammo. I have some Berger 150gr. VLD bullets that I am in the process of reloading.

[Red Dawg]

sweet, i need one.

[NORRISKI2]

I own a 300 wsm Tikka T3 lite.  Great rifle and very accurate.  I also have a 7mm WSM which is a great round as well.  If it is me I would go with the 300 wsm as it is more popular and here to stay.   

[MountainWalk]

if i were forced to buy a shorty, which God forbid i dont have to, i would seriously consider  the Lazzoronni's.     im kinda with fos on his choice of cals... while i only have a 338 , id love to have more and bigger....i also dont think a 376 steyr or a 350 rigby is not too out there

[bankwalker]

yeahout of the wsm family. the 7mm seemed to get the least following. there is alot and i mean alot of guys i run into in the woods that shoot 270, 300, and 325 wsm's.

im still in the market for a new rifle. and im trying my hardest to stay away from a wsm...thats all ive owned besides my 243. which is in reality a shortmag minus the magnum part 

[saylean]

I have a Tikka T3 300 wsm...happy with it so far. As far as the kick...i dont even notice it when im shooting at an animal...now target practicing is different...i got a shoulder pad for that action...

Of course, I dont reload or take 300 yard shots...so im no expert.