Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   General Rifle Discussion (
-   -   Winchester vs WSM (

MAX4utah 03-24-2011 02:28 AM

Winchester vs WSM
What are the advantages to a short mag caliber? I would be interested in 270 vs 270 WSM.

I know there is not quite the selection of ammo and it is a bit more expensive (i do not re-load...yet). I am narrowing my rifle selection down to 270, 270 WSM and 30-06. The gun will mainly be used for mule deer and elk. I do plan on shooting it a fair amount otherwise.

JonM 03-24-2011 03:33 AM

your better off with a 30-06. better bullet selection especially for the really big beasties. there are much better built bullets available that will drive deep into the innards in a straight line far better than offerings in .27cal.

Forgot to add the diff tween long and short action is just that a shorter bolt throw. This is only really important when hunting dangerous game where quick follow up shots are important. Lots of folks on long action panic and short stroke the bolt resulting in fail to load and the hunter getting turned into paste.

It might be of concern in north america hunting grizzly polars or mountain lion but its typically an african thing.

cpttango30 03-24-2011 03:57 AM

The short mags were orginally designed by gun writer Rick Jamison.

They are the reason why he doesn't write anymore. (He sued Winchester because they stole the Idea from him)

They were developed off of the short fat powder column like that of the ppc cartridges (22 PPC and 6mm PPC)

They are a more efficent way to ignite and burn powder. That is why you will see slightly lighters loads from win mag loads. The 300 has a few people who love it for the long range game (F-Open and LR Benchrest). They also offer magnum performance in a smaller lighter rifle action of a short action design vs the long action required for the win mags or H&H mags.

They are dying out for the most part. The 300 WSM is about the only one that has a good foot hold and may last longer than any other in my eyes.

JonM 03-24-2011 04:02 AM

Pardon if I misinterpreted the question.

greydog 03-24-2011 08:07 PM

The short mags were not originally designed by Rick Jamieson; he just claimed that they were. Such cartridges were designed and rifles produced for them before Jamieson was born.
The short, fat powder column may or may not be more efficient. There is no real evidence to show that it is. The 300 WSM matches 300 Win Mag velocities because it is loaded to higher pressures. High enough that, in many rifles chambered for the 300 WSM, factory loads will expand the primer pockets.
Having said all this, the 300 WSM has become a well established cartridge and is a viable choice. In calibers smaller than .30, I prefer cartridges based on the 30/06 case (270 Win, 280 Rem, etc.) GD

therewolf 03-24-2011 11:11 PM

Another vote for 30.06.

IMO, better for what you want to do, generally.

It may depend on how recoil sensitive you are.

It also may hinge on how economically sensitive you are.

30.06 may kick a little

more, but it's more popular, and in all likelihood, cheaper.

General_lee 03-24-2011 11:24 PM

I would stay away from Short Mag calibers. The ammo can be expensive and hard to find.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.