I am looking at buying a 270wsm for the wife as an elk gun. She shoots the 243 very well already, but I am curious if anyone else out there has any insight on what the recoil is like. I know I have shot a 300wsm and the recoil is nothing like that of the recoil of at 300 win mag. We went to the store and had her shoulder a few different rifles. She felt comfortable with the Tikka, Bergara and Savage. Any info is appreciated! Also, the 6.5 is not an option. We don’t have any intention of braking the rifle either. Thanks
270 WSM info wanted.
- Thread starter hoyt-6190
- Start date
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,402
- 6,213
Felt recoil on the 270WSM is readily manageable. I've taken a variety of game (including moose, elk, black bear and mule deer) with the 270WSMs I've owned. Fit the rifle with a quality butt pad and avoid trying to wring the last bit of velocity from the cartridge, and it will work very well for your good lady. The recoil is not that of a 243, but it is not anything like the big 30 calibre cartridges, either.
gerry
Ammo Smith
- Mar 1, 2007
- 6,908
- 1,791
With full power loads it recoils a bit more than a 270 Win but the great news if you burn a bit faster powder in it you can bring it down to 270 Win recoil and performance pretty easily which she should be able to handle as long as you don't shoot too many loads at each practice session. I would be looking at some of the tougher 130 gr bullets for your application personally.
- Thread starter
- #4
In the 270 WSM for elk, I would recommend the 140gr AccuBond for the SD of over 0.250 for the penetration on these tough animals. Stay clear of the heavy shoulder bone. Double lung hits keep them from going far. Like the WSM's and find their recoil milder than other rifles in similar magnum chamberings.
As for the rifle, I would look for ones with stock dimensions that will fit her best i.e. length of pull, weight and balance. Tikka's are light rifles and do not have great recoil pads. Would not be my first pick for someone who may be recoil sensitive. You can replace the factory pad with a LimbSaver pad that works very well.
Have heard good things about Bergara but cannot comment from personal experience.
Savage does make a rifle that has dimensions designed for women, and can be very accurate.
Would also suggest looking at the Browning X-Bolt. They make good rifles, that have good recoil pads and offer micro models that may fit her better, if normal stock dimensions do not. Mine have been very accurate.
Best of luck in your search!
As for the rifle, I would look for ones with stock dimensions that will fit her best i.e. length of pull, weight and balance. Tikka's are light rifles and do not have great recoil pads. Would not be my first pick for someone who may be recoil sensitive. You can replace the factory pad with a LimbSaver pad that works very well.
Have heard good things about Bergara but cannot comment from personal experience.
Savage does make a rifle that has dimensions designed for women, and can be very accurate.
Would also suggest looking at the Browning X-Bolt. They make good rifles, that have good recoil pads and offer micro models that may fit her better, if normal stock dimensions do not. Mine have been very accurate.
Best of luck in your search!
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,402
- 6,213
I have shot a 130 grain E-Tip in each of my 270WSMs. I never felt I needed more mass. That bullet at the velocities generated have worked very well, indeed.
What has you thinking abot the 270wsm vs. Say a 270 win, 7-08 or 308? Recoil would be manageable on any of them and able to kill an elk out to 400 yards, and easier to buy ammo for. Not that there is anything wrong with the 270wsm. I ended up with a 7-08 for my daughter for a step up from her 243, i liked the options for a heavier bullet.
- Thread starter
- #8
Dr. Vette
Handloader
- Apr 16, 2012
- 1,480
- 365
I used to have a 270 WSM, now have a 300 WSM.
I think that the 270WSM did not have the recoil that the 300 does, and found it enjoyable to shoot from a cartridge perspective. I just did not like the particular rifle.
I think that the 270WSM did not have the recoil that the 300 does, and found it enjoyable to shoot from a cartridge perspective. I just did not like the particular rifle.
Teknys
Handloader
- Jan 14, 2008
- 833
- 339
I used a 270 WSM for 10 years in a Sako 75 Finnlight. I loaded the 140AB and the 150BT. I moved on also to the 300 WSM in a Sako 85 Finnlight. Only cause this is my "Elk" carry rifle. I'm loading 180PT in it.
For the 270 WSM, I would recommend the 140AB if Elk are in the plans. If not use what shoots best.
For the 270 WSM, I would recommend the 140AB if Elk are in the plans. If not use what shoots best.
HAWKEYESATX
Handloader
- Aug 15, 2016
- 1,805
- 64
Just my 2 cents worth....
Don't rely on factory ammo ballistics to be where they actually are. In order to get what you need in performance, you will more than likely have to reload for the .270 WSM!
Now, with that being said, there are a few cartridges that come very close, or get the same exact muzzle velocities as is advertised. The cartridges I am talking about are: .270 Win., 7mm-08, .308 Win, .25-06, and the 6.5 Creedmoor.
I too, a couple years ago, was looking to pull the trigger on a Savage Trophy Hunter XP in .270 WSM. I liked the performance on paper. But remembered what I said above.
Then, I happened upon an article written about the Thompson Center Venture rifle, and it was chambered in .270 Win.
Well, right out the gate, that rifle and cartridge combo really peaked my interest, and saw what the factory ammo did in that rifle. I was flabbergasted. Then it came time to the part where they hand loaded it, and the author was able to safely get within 50-100 fps of the .270 WSM published data. WOW! The accuracy, and the performance I read about sold me on getting a .270 Win. With the new powders available today, the old girl gets a really good makeover. I can safely push a 150 gr bullet out of my barrel at 3150 fps in a hand load.
Needless to say, I bought a TC Venture in .270 Win! Now, I don't have to shoot a rifle that eats up over 70grs. of powder, to get within 50-100 fps of the .270 WSM.
A game animal in the field isn't going to notice the 50-100 fps difference. The only thing I give up is on average 25 yds difference, and less than 2 inches of drop at any given distance, except when things get really, really long. And if it comes down to that, the .270 WSM isn't going to be that much better at over 800 yds for me.
I'm able to shoot better with that rifle now, because I'm not distracted by recoil, or muzzle blast like from a .270 WSM.
Don't get me wrong the .270 WSM is a fine cartridge. I just realized, for myself, I can get within 75% performance of the .270 WSM with the time tested, and big game approved, classic cartridge called the .270 Win.
Also, to touch upon what someone else had already mentioned, if I'm in elk country, and I misplace my ammo, I can run to the nearest gas station in Colorado, or Wyoming, and they'll have several boxes of .270 Win on the shelf. B it with a .270 WSM, they more than likely won't be carrying it. Another thing, the cost of .270 WSM ammo is about twice that of .270 Win. I'm not sure if that makes a difference. It did for me.
Your wife could do a lot worse by not choosing the .270 Win.
Sent from my motorola one using Tapatalk
Don't rely on factory ammo ballistics to be where they actually are. In order to get what you need in performance, you will more than likely have to reload for the .270 WSM!
Now, with that being said, there are a few cartridges that come very close, or get the same exact muzzle velocities as is advertised. The cartridges I am talking about are: .270 Win., 7mm-08, .308 Win, .25-06, and the 6.5 Creedmoor.
I too, a couple years ago, was looking to pull the trigger on a Savage Trophy Hunter XP in .270 WSM. I liked the performance on paper. But remembered what I said above.
Then, I happened upon an article written about the Thompson Center Venture rifle, and it was chambered in .270 Win.
Well, right out the gate, that rifle and cartridge combo really peaked my interest, and saw what the factory ammo did in that rifle. I was flabbergasted. Then it came time to the part where they hand loaded it, and the author was able to safely get within 50-100 fps of the .270 WSM published data. WOW! The accuracy, and the performance I read about sold me on getting a .270 Win. With the new powders available today, the old girl gets a really good makeover. I can safely push a 150 gr bullet out of my barrel at 3150 fps in a hand load.
Needless to say, I bought a TC Venture in .270 Win! Now, I don't have to shoot a rifle that eats up over 70grs. of powder, to get within 50-100 fps of the .270 WSM.
A game animal in the field isn't going to notice the 50-100 fps difference. The only thing I give up is on average 25 yds difference, and less than 2 inches of drop at any given distance, except when things get really, really long. And if it comes down to that, the .270 WSM isn't going to be that much better at over 800 yds for me.
I'm able to shoot better with that rifle now, because I'm not distracted by recoil, or muzzle blast like from a .270 WSM.
Don't get me wrong the .270 WSM is a fine cartridge. I just realized, for myself, I can get within 75% performance of the .270 WSM with the time tested, and big game approved, classic cartridge called the .270 Win.
Also, to touch upon what someone else had already mentioned, if I'm in elk country, and I misplace my ammo, I can run to the nearest gas station in Colorado, or Wyoming, and they'll have several boxes of .270 Win on the shelf. B it with a .270 WSM, they more than likely won't be carrying it. Another thing, the cost of .270 WSM ammo is about twice that of .270 Win. I'm not sure if that makes a difference. It did for me.
Your wife could do a lot worse by not choosing the .270 Win.
Sent from my motorola one using Tapatalk
I have had a 270 WSM since about 04. I have used the 130 Interbonds, 140 Accubonds, 150 Partitions and BBC's. It is a demon in my book. I've never ran a mono through it, but anything 130 or so would be excellent as Mike attests too.
I used the Winchester Supreme 140 Accubonds for a few years and to be honest, I could match the accuracy and speed they gave me, but never beat them. I wanna say they clocked close to 3250 from my Model 70 and were excellent!
I used the Winchester Supreme 140 Accubonds for a few years and to be honest, I could match the accuracy and speed they gave me, but never beat them. I wanna say they clocked close to 3250 from my Model 70 and were excellent!
Richracer1
Handloader
- May 12, 2005
- 2,139
- 119
A Winchester M70 "Walmart combination special" was my first rifle I purchased in late 2003. It's been a great rifle. Between my 30-06 and 270WSM, my girlfriend chose it to use in her first hunt ever in 2017. I've taken quite a few CA hogs and blacktail deer and a couple of cow elk here in Idaho. After several "cheap" scopes it now has a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x50.
I developed a 140 AB and a 130ET load as ammo back in the early days of the 270WSM was hard to find.
140AB (not the fastest, but it is accurate)
GM215M primer
Win brass trimmed to 2.09"
61.5gn of RL-19
COL is 2.875 (base to tip)
130ET
GM215M Primer
Win brass trimmed to 2.09"
60.5gn of IMR4350
COL is 2.88"
I developed a 140 AB and a 130ET load as ammo back in the early days of the 270WSM was hard to find.
140AB (not the fastest, but it is accurate)
GM215M primer
Win brass trimmed to 2.09"
61.5gn of RL-19
COL is 2.875 (base to tip)
130ET
GM215M Primer
Win brass trimmed to 2.09"
60.5gn of IMR4350
COL is 2.88"
