The 270 win short mag

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
Quite an intriguing caliber:

1) Posts ballistics close to my 7mm Rem.

2) Lighter guns available.

3) The short mags supposedly more inherently accurate.

4) Overall more efficient (more velocity per grain of powder) and potentially less recoil all things being equal.

I've read a few things about feeding problems due the steep (or shallow, can't remember which) shoulder which makes me nervous.

I've had to make quick follow up shots on a couple of my best deer and a feeding problem would have cost me those bucks.

Is this feeding issue a myth?
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,111
Location
Western MT
The feeding issue is an absolute myth. I have had two 270 WSMs with never a problem. It is a fine caliber, but really overbore. My 270 WSMs didn't last long in the throat (like around 1000 rounds and they were torched). The only real issue with case design is most rifles chambered in the WSMs only allow for two in the magazine. I think the gun (barrel, fit, bedding, etc.) has a lot more to do with the accuracy than cartridge.

Unlike 7mms, there are only a few high BC hunting pills available for the 270. have you considered the 7 WSM?
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
Yes, I've looked at the 7WSM, but liked the ballistics of the 270, although only slight difference. I did not consider throat wear with the smaller caliber with that much powder though. It doesn't take many years to get up to 1000 rounds.

Thanks, that's why I asked.

Good to hear on the feeding problems.

Have you ever feed 3 rounds in about 5 seconds?
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,111
Location
Western MT
Have you ever feed 3 rounds in about 5 seconds?

I have never had a feeding problem, and I have cycled the action quickly a few times. I don't know exactly how long it took.

One thing about the WSMs are the cases feed fine, but they aren't that smooth, so to speak. My Rem Model 7 7-08 is just slick as snot when you throw the bolt.

I mention the 7 WSM, because with the high BC bullets available, like the Bergers and 160 AB, you get really good performance way out there, when compared to the 270 WSM. Both are really nice cartridges. I have also had good luck with the 300 WSM. For the handloader, it seems like those short, fat cases just aren't as picky on powder. Maybe there isn't any science behind that, but it seems that way.
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
No, I think there is sceince by what I've read. The shorter cases (more surface area closer to the primer) is why they are more accurate- a more consistent burn than a longer case.

This is totally what I'm pulling out of my often flawed brain, but am sure that is what I read so powder choices might not be so critical.

You mention the Short mags aren't that smooth to feed and is probably what the misfeed myth is based on. Maybe someone will post contrary...

Is the 7WSM the same action length?

I ask because when I looked into a Kimber Mountain rifle, I thought the 270 WSM was lighter than the 7mm short????
 

Matt Cashell

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,111
Location
Western MT
No, I think there is sceince by what I've read. The shorter cases (more surface area closer to the primer) is why they are more accurate- a more consistent burn than a longer case.

This is totally what I'm pulling out of my often flawed brain, but am sure that is what I read so powder choices might not be so critical.

You mention the Short mags aren't that smooth to feed and is probably what the misfeed myth is based on. Maybe someone will post contrary...

Is the 7WSM the same action length?

I ask because when I looked into a Kimber Mountain rifle, I thought the 270 WSM was lighter than the 7mm short????

Same action length. Case length is slightly different than the 270 WSM, so they can't chamber in rifles chambered for the other. I don't think Kimber offers the Montana in 7 WSM, however, just the 270 WSM and 300 WSM. Both the 300 and 270 Montanas weigh in a little over 6 pounds, if I remember right.
 

JG358

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
1,081
Location
Colorado
I wouldnt say the feeding issue is a myth, I'd call it a production issue thats usually easy to remidy. :)
 

BuckSnort

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
1,034
Location
Central CA
I have a Tikka T3 in 270 WSM and have never had a feeding issue as fast as you can work the bolt 3 in the mag and one in the pipe... Then again these rifles are known for their smooth as silk actions...

My rifle shoots great, consistent .5-.75 MOA ....

All things being equal YES the design of the shorter cases SHOULD be more accurate due to their ability to ignite the powder evenly... Having said that, When you compare short mags to standard calibers accuracy potential it becomes like comparing apples to oranges..Too many variances in chamber dimensions/concentricity and barrel quality....

I bought my Tikka for the main reason of having a lightweight packing rifle..I chose the 270 WSM but if they offered a 7WSM I would have been all over it... They also chamber their rifles in 260 Rem and I sometimes wish I would have got that instead as the trajectory is far superior...
 

ckleeves

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,253
Location
Montrose,Colorado
I have a Tikka T3 in 270 WSM and have never had a feeding issue as fast as you can work the bolt 3 in the mag and one in the pipe... Then again these rifles are known for their smooth as silk actions...

My rifle shoots great, consistent .5-.75 MOA ....

All things being equal YES the design of the shorter cases SHOULD be more accurate due to their ability to ignite the powder evenly... Having said that, When you compare short mags to standard calibers accuracy potential it becomes like comparing apples to oranges..Too many variances in chamber dimensions/concentricity and barrel quality....

I bought my Tikka for the main reason of having a lightweight packing rifle..I chose the 270 WSM but if they offered a 7WSM I would have been all over it... They also chamber their rifles in 260 Rem and I sometimes wish I would have got that instead as the trajectory is far superior...

What are you loading in the 260 rem to smoke a 270 wsm? Just curious I didn't think you could get them that hot.
 

BuckSnort

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
1,034
Location
Central CA
What are you loading in the 260 rem to smoke a 270 wsm? Just curious I didn't think you could get them that hot.

It's the bullet itself that does it.. A 6.5mm bullets ballistics far outshines those of .277 With the right load it can match and even outdo the 300 WinMag's ballistics at long range...
 

ckleeves

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,253
Location
Montrose,Colorado
It's the bullet itself that does it.. A 6.5mm bullets ballistics far outshines those of .277 With the right load it can match and even outdo the 300 WinMag's ballistics at long range...

Ahh OK I gotcha I missunderstood I wasn't thinking of the ultra high bc bullets available for it.
 

hodgeman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
1,080
Location
Delta Junction, AK
I've been using a .300WSM for 6 years.... the feeding issues are more or less a rifle issue exacerbated by a short case- not exactly a myth but not exactly a problem you'll encounter. All of my WSMs feed and shoot fine. I can empty the rifle as fast as any other but haven't needed to since it has an impressive record of one shot DRTs.

The .270 WSM is a fine cartridge and should be good for most critters in NA and a lot of other places. The 140AB will yield excellent results in the field and most rifles like them just fine. Remember- the .270 and .300 WSMs also perform well downloaded a bit if barrel life is an issue.
 

belly-deep

Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
707
I from what I've heard, most of the feeding issues are due to gun design, not the cartridge itself. Right now, I can't remember exactly which guns have had the issues, but I do know Kimber is one of them.


What you could do is go with a Kimber 84L in .280 Ack. Imp. It weighs 5lbs 10oz, shouldn't have feeding issues, and can fire standard .280 ammo if need be. It pretty much duplicates the 7mm Rem Mag...
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
Trevor your gun is the one that keeps me thinking about these Kimbers. I think you said that the weight of your .308 is less than what it would be in a 270 WSM?
 

belly-deep

Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
707
Mine weighs 5lb 4oz (bare) and the WSMs are 6lb 3oz. What does your 7mm weigh? The WSM Kimber might not be that much lighter than your 7mm once you get a scope and rings on it.
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
my Weatherby in 7mm Rem Mag weighed 6 lbs 12 oz naked. It weighs just under eight with my 2.5-8x Leupold now. Looks like I'd save about 9 onces switching to the Kimber?
 

Tdiesel

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
123
Location
Colorado
I have a 7mm wsm in a browning and I have never had a feeding issue with it. I love the round and that came from shooting a 7mm rem mag. its a light rifle I have no idea what it weighs though I know its lighter than any other rifle I have and will hold 1/2" MOA out to around 800 yrds which is far enough for me.
 

T43

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
259
My 7wsm model 70 is my go to gun. I have never had a feeding issue with it and it shoots better than I can. It is a bit heavier than the Sako A7 300 wsm I plan on taking out this fall but it's still one of my favorites.
 

Chesapeake

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
215
I have the Kimber Montana in 270 and 7mm WSM. I havent played with the 7mm yet. My rifle is right about 8#'s with VX-3 3.5-10x40, talley lightweights, alumina covers, and a sling.

The 270 is nice but lacking in the bullet catagory. The 7mm has vast bullet choices.
The 7mm will far outpace the 270 if your willing to shoot the 162 A-max for a hunting bullet.

In my 270 WSM I shot the 140 accubond. It did OK. It blows up the front of the bullet on shorter shots and punches through on longer stuff. It seems to me that the .277 accubond doesnt perform the same as the .308 version.

My Montana's feed fine. The first shell if the magazine is full is a little rough. #2 and #3 are good. The higher spring pressure on the first shell out causes the issues.

The WSM's are a touch heavier than the short actions. The 7mm-08 montana is a wonderfull rifle.
 
OP
robby denning

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,227
Location
SE Idaho
Good to hear from another owner. These sound like great guns. Belly-deeps is so light you forget you're carrying it. I might lean toward the 7 WSM after this thread.
 
Top