264 WM Or 270 WSM

[mladucer]

Figured i would start up a little debate on the forum here, always nice to get everyones opinion. Both calibers are great and flat shooting, and i my self own a .264 WM. Also im curious about the .270WSM and peoples experinces with them.
So as all of you could guess at what my choice is--.264WM. Reason being that the Ballistic Coefficient of most 6.5 bullets are outstanding along with the Sectional Densitys. The caliber and bullets are also big enough to take an elk if you really had too; within an ethical range. Heck it really puts a hurting on whitetail out to 500 yards as I found out this year.

 

[FOTIS]

270WSM

My choice and I have had plenty of both!

 

[DrMike]

Flip a coin. Seriously, the choice of the rifle will likely determine your choice of a cartridge given these two choices. Either will work on large-bodied deer and on elk with a good bullet. I lean toward the 270 WSM because I already have one. Moreover, higher velocities given the same mass, translating into higher energy delivered on target.

 

[jmad_81]

well I have had two 270 WSMs, and I think I would have to give the 264 WM a try. Something new to me, and I like belted mags.

 

[YoteSmoker]

264 wm since tc doesnt make a 270 wsm for the encore (pressures/liablility), plus I don't care much for the .277 caliber.

 

[SJB358]

I have a 270WSM and love it! It is by far my favorite rifle. 130's at 3300, 150's at 3100+ it is also a very accurate rifle and seems to be very easy to load for. I have taken elk, muleys and whitetails and a few coyotes. Very versatile and pretty easy to shoot. On the other hand, I would like to have a 264WM. I do think they are a touch tougher to load for and may be a little harder on barrels. Neither of which are really valid for me. I vote 270WSM if I had to choose between them though. Scotty

 

[SJB358]

I fat fingered something gents. Please delete these extras. Scotty

 

[SJB358]

Repeat.

 

[enfield fan]

I have the 270 wsm and i have found it to be a very accurate and easy caliber to load for.It has become my favorite gun on the rack. 8)

 

[Divernhunter]

I have never been a 270 fan of any loading BUT that is just me. I have however always liked the 264 mag. I presently have acouple of 6.5X55 and really like them. I would love to have a 264win mag in a tang safety Ruger or a Tikka/Savage barrelled in it.

Just a personal thing either would get most jobs done with the 264 having an edge on larger stuff such as elk/moose in my mind.

 

[SJB358]

Divernhunter, why do you say the 264 has the edge towards larger game as elk/moose. Is it because of the SD differences? Just wondering. Scotty

 

[JD338]

I think both are great calibers but the 264 Win Mag intrigues me. That would be my pick.

JD338

 

[huntnfool]

I own a 270 WSM and love it. I have it shooting groups from just under a half inch up to one inch at 100 yards. My Savage 114 Classic seems to like loads more towards the middle of the powder load charts. So far, that is where my best goups have come from.

I did lots of research on different calibers before I made the purchase. It delivers equal or better down range energy and velocity as some of the magnums without the recoil. It is very easy to load for as well.

I too, would like to try a 264 WM. I have always thought it was an interesting cartride.

I also agree with Dr. Mike's comments.

 

[Divernhunter]

Beretzs-----Yes and the fact that 6.5mm bullets have proven for many years to take game of about that size in Europe. That would be stag and moose in the 6.5X55 cartridge. I have also seen excellent performance of the 6.5mm bullets on wild boar which can be tuff.

 

[SJB358]

Good deal, thanks buddy. Just wondering. I kinda figured that. I would have liked to seen a 6.5WSM. I think that cartridge would have been a very cool round with alot of potential also. Scotty

 

[FOTIS]

The 150 grain Partition at 3150 fps of the 270 WSM really makes the difference between the 2 IMO.

 

[SJB358]

Yes sir! Plus, getting 3100+ from the 150gr PT is pretty easy. It isn't any magic at all, I have a standard 24" barrel and can get there with good accuracy with a few powders I have tried so far. IMR7828 and RL22 are producing 3/4" groups and 3120 and 3145.

That would be my elk load were I to use the 270WSM for elk again. Plus, they shoot very flat. 3" high at 100 is pretty much a 300 yard zero and about 9-10" low at 400 yards. That is pretty sweet for range estimation. Scotty

 

[Ridge_Runner]

I've never shot neither, however I shoot a 6.5 gibbs, which runs 140's at slightly higher velocities than the 264, and a 270 weatherby mag which also slightly surpasses the 270 wsm, my opinion, not enough difference to worry about at ranges to 500 yards, at 1K I would give the nod to the 6.5 unless I could find some wildcat 169 gr.
RR

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

I've loaded for both and owned a 270 WSM. Dad had a win mdl 70 in a 264.

I'd take the 264 since it has higher BC's for shooting long range and a lot more LR bullets to choose from.

 

[nomosendero]

I've loaded for both and owned a 270 WSM. Dad had a win mdl 70 in a 264.

I'd take the 264 since it has higher BC's for shooting long range and a lot more LR bullets to choose from.

Agreed! I would rather use a 264 with a 140 @ 3200-3250 than a 270cal with a 140 @ 3150. The 6.5 BC is greater for a given 140 such as a Part. & AccuBond & SD is .287 vs .261. And then you have the Berger 140 6.5 @ a BC of .612!! But both are great, but the 6.5 has a lot better long range bullets