-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
.280 Rem or .270 WSM for Deer +
- Thread starter JGreen
- Start date
I've only got a .270 Win, but I routinely find .270 WSM stocked on the shelves when picking up ammo?
Some .270 stuff:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/270family.htm
And Remington's website has got a nice online ballistics comparator.
Some .270 stuff:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/270family.htm
And Remington's website has got a nice online ballistics comparator.
Funny - I would have thought it to be the opposite. We have a ton of WSM and no 280....
.270 WSM is shorter, and if the receiver is designed for it can result in a shorter and lighter rifle. That makes it lighter to carry, particularly if you stick to a compact, low power scope. The downside, of course, of a light rifle like my Kimber Montana in .270 WSM is that it kicks like an 870 with slugs. Not fun to shoot off the bench.
Either is more than enough for a deer out to 300 yards.
Either is more than enough for a deer out to 300 yards.
.270 Winchester:
.270 WSM:
Are you sure that you saw .270 WSM and not the more common .270 Winchester?
The .270 Win ammo is going to WAY more available everywhere than either the .280 or 270WSM, but locally, I'm going to find .280 before any 270 WSM ammo.
The 270 and 280 are nothing more than the 30-06 necked down to .27 and .28 (7mm). I don't think you could find a deer that could tell the difference between the two.
I like the bullet selection with the .280 much more. A lot more 7mm selection than .270 (and a bit heavier, also).
The 270 WSM is still a new-ish chambering. Looks great on paper. I've heard it has hefty recoil.
Of your choices, I'd still stick with the .280.
If we are talking just a pure deer rifle, I'd pick a 7x57 or a 6.5X55. In fact, that's what I did.
The 270 and 280 are nothing more than the 30-06 necked down to .27 and .28 (7mm). I don't think you could find a deer that could tell the difference between the two.
I like the bullet selection with the .280 much more. A lot more 7mm selection than .270 (and a bit heavier, also).
The 270 WSM is still a new-ish chambering. Looks great on paper. I've heard it has hefty recoil.
Of your choices, I'd still stick with the .280.
If we are talking just a pure deer rifle, I'd pick a 7x57 or a 6.5X55. In fact, that's what I did.
Mine sure does have a lot of recoil. I suspect a lot of that is due to the fact that it weights 6 lbs 3 oz.
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
The 270 WSM has a greater velocity, I think somewhere around 200 FPS, and can be chambered in a short action rifle. They are pretty much a wash for most applications.
Respectfully,
jkelly
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
Jon,
If you are going to handload, you will find a greater range of 7mm bullets than .277, or so I think I remember.
I don't think there is a lot of difference in the .280 Rem and the .270WSM out to 300 yards.
Respectfully,
jkelly
As you can see in the picture on the previous page, 270 is a much longer cartridge than 270 WSM. This allows a 270 WSM to fit into a much shorter receiver. A shorter receiver is lighter. Theoretically, 270 WSM may be a bit more accurate, as the shorter receiver is stiffer, and short, fat cartridges burn more uniformly. But I doubt you'll notice much difference.
