Bought mine 10 years ago and have fell in love with it. Ammo runs about 40 bucks a box though because of the low demand. It has good numbers on bullet velocity and such so why aren't more people using it?

Well imo I think you referred to part of it in your post asking the question. The 270 Winchester has stood the test of time. You can buy a box of 270 shells pushing a 130 grain bullet ~3200 fps for 15-20 dollars. That's pretty powerful medicine.

After shooting a 270 for 30 years, took the plunge this year and bought a Christensen Ridgeline 270 WSM.
Love it, very accurate shooting Hornady 145 grain ELDX @ 3100 fps. Felt recoil in my Christensen is about the same as my old 270. Extremely pleased.

The WSM cartridges were a solution in search of a problem. The .270WSM is the only unique one (no .270 mag in wide circulation), and as such will likely be the only one to survive. Maybe 300WSM for people wanting a lighter pack gun.

Great calibers but like a lot of new unique rounds they start off well and then something new comes out a few years later and they start to be forgotten. Combine in the price of ammo and it's tough for a new round to carve out a permanent nitch. Looks like the 6.5 Creedmoor is going to do it because it applies well to the paper hole punchers and hunters. If you can't do that you'll probably struggle no matter how good the loading.

I have one and love the way it shoots.

Y'all are gonna flame me, but when Winchester came out with the 300WSM a friende of mine and I wildcatted the 270 WSM.
Been shooting it since!
There's a long story that I don't wanna type to go with it. Mainly my discussion with product developeent at Winchester shortly after we wildcatted the cartridge.

SWCBonfire said:

---

The WSM cartridges were a solution in search of a problem. The .270WSM is the only unique one (no .270 mag in wide circulation), and as such will likely be the only one to survive. Maybe 300WSM for people wanting a lighter pack gun.

---

I,disagree somewhat. They were developed to replicate, or get close to anyway, magnum performance in a short action.

A shorter and stiffer action generally means,more repetable and accurate. Us it is lighter. Granted, only a few ounces, but still lighter.

The .300 WSM is close, o .300 Win Mag performance with less powder, and beats .30-06 performance with only a marginal increase in powder.

Some rounds just dont take off though, for a variety of reasons. A big one is competing with decades old rounds.

schmellba99 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

The WSM cartridges were a solution in search of a problem. The .270WSM is the only unique one (no .270 mag in wide circulation), and as such will likely be the only one to survive. Maybe 300WSM for people wanting a lighter pack gun.

---

I,disagree somewhat. They were developed to replicate, or get close to anyway, magnum performance in a short action.

A shorter and stiffer action generally means,more repetable and accurate. Us it is lighter. Granted, only a few ounces, but still lighter.

The .300 WSM is close, o .300 Win Mag performance with less powder, and beats .30-06 performance with only a marginal increase in powder.

Some rounds just dont take off though, for a variety of reasons. A big one is competing with decades old rounds.

---

I think this is a big part of the reason. Think of the thousands and thousands of 30 cal rifles out there built in the last 70-80 years. 30-06, .308 etc. You will need to sell a metric crap-ton of new wsm's and other new cartridges to approach the demand of the established rounds. Same holds true for 270, 7mm-08 and the rest.

They also took it too far with the super short magnums which had feeding problems. Then people started to not trust any short mag.

That's my thinking here. I'm interested to know how the 6.5 round has flourished and seems to be here to stay whereas the same can't be said for the WSM. I know the 6.5 is exceptional, but everything I've read on the WSM is technically superior to the 270 yet it has become a niche gun compared to how the 6.5 has become a staple. I wish I could pay 17 bucks for 20 rounds rather than 40!

I think it's cause the .270 is considered just a hunting caliber. Example, Berger doesn't make any .277 bullets In their Target or Tactical categories. For a lot of people it just doesn't have the sex appeal.

tmaggies said:

---

That's my thinking here. I'm interested to know how the 6.5 round has flourished and seems to be here to stay whereas the same can't be said for the WSM. I know the 6.5 is exceptional, but everything I've read on the WSM is technically superior to the 270 yet it has become a niche gun compared to how the 6.5 has become a staple. I wish I could pay 17 bucks for 20 rounds rather than 40!

---

You seem to be comparing caliber and cartridge, apples and oranges. As the caliber gets smaller with the WSM the shorter the barrel life. A 6.5 WSM is a barrel burner. 6.5 Creedmoor isn't. But, as you state the smaller calibers in the WSM cartridge can have superior performance ballistically over the smaller cartridges in the same caliber. A hunter may be fine with 800 rnd barrel life where as a competitive isn't.

270 wsm shoots 3-4" flatter over distance (300-400) and packs a little more punch. It's just a better version of the 270 which is already outstanding.

Yep. Hunter only here so i doubt I'll be killing 800 deer in my lifetime haha.

I have a 270 and a 270wsm. Love them both.

If I had to choose a cartridge to hunt everything in North America (short of a Grizzly or Brown Bear) it would be a 270 WSM!

To answer the OP's question, because it has the letters WSM after .270.

That and because the .270 came first nearly a century ago.

I have always been fascinated with the subject of product survival, specifically cartridge survival, for a long time.

I think the easy answer for success and failure is timing and marketing. They put a round out right when tactical was becoming cool and it was not picked up by many other rifle makers. I don't think it has much to do with performance. In fact I don't think performance has had much to do with the success or failure of a lot of them.

For reference, in 2015 from Federal.

1. .223/5.56 (1962)
2. .308/51 (1952)
3. 30-06 (1906)
4. 30-30 (1895)
5. .270 (1923)
6. .243 (1955)
7. 300 mag (1963)
8. 7.62x39 (Stalin)
9. 300 WSM (2001)
10. 22-250 (1965) - wildcat since the 30s?

Because the WSMs were the Flavor of The Month of that particular moment that the firearms industry cooked up to sell rifles and ammo.

It has NOTHING to do with how well it kills, balistics, performance, usage etc. I'm sure lots of deer were killed with it and so on.

However, as that particular craze faded, it was replaced by others.

Then, if you'll remember, there was an ammo shortage during a certain presidential administration and companys could barely keep up with "standard" calibers (remember trying to buy .22lr?) Calibers that were more "wild cat" simply were not made during that time because of economics.

When the ammo shortage ended, the popularity of the WSMs had been lost.

It was popular in the moment, a lot of people bought them, and then they faded away sort of like tribal armband tattoos, Ed Hardy tee shirts and the 6.5 Creedmore.....

I have a 270 WSM that I got from my dad, and love the way it shoots, but it is irritating to find ammo for.

Quote:

---

If I had to choose a cartridge to hunt everything in North America (short of a Grizzly or Brown Bear) it would be a 270 WSM!

---

I'd just buy more guns....

Man, I loved shooting and prepping the .270 WSM my uncle loaned me for my elk hunt (and it did great on my bull). That Weatherby and scope were the easiest sighting in I've ever done. But holy hell it was expensive. The rifle either loved or hated a particular load, and you could figure it out real quick, just happened to be a $40-50 experiment. It really liked any of the deer appropriate rounds, but dear Lord finding an elk appropriate round it liked was a pain. I like walking into a store and simply buying a box of ammo, outside of 2-3 loads that are pretty easy to find (mostly deer load), you pretty well had to order online.....part lof the challenge was my uncle had only shot the rifle a handful of times, so he really didn't have a good feel for where to start.

What round did you end up using for the elk?

The 140 gr Accubond

I have a .300 WSM as my .30 cal hunting rifle. Took a while to develop a good load for it, but now it's done. Kicks like a mule, but the odds of me shooting more than 1x or 2x in any sitting from here on out are pretty slim.

In Texas i still use my .243 9 times out of 10 while deer hunting anyway.

BlueSmoke said:

---

Quote:

---

If I had to choose a cartridge to hunt everything in North America (short of a Grizzly or Brown Bear) it would be a 270 WSM!

---

I'd just buy more guns....

---

I've done that too!!

I had written this long post on this thread this afternoon and shut off my computer without sending it.

Great topic though, especially when you consider that the vast majority of shots taken in the US could easily be covered by the early 30 calibers.

you answered your own question - ammo is $40. No thanks. There's a bunch of solid hunting calibers with wide circulation and more affordable ammo.

JSKolache said:

---

you answered your own question - ammo is $40. No thanks. There's a bunch of solid hunting calibers with wide circulation and more affordable ammo.

---

Not a big deal if you reload.
And, I don't burn up a box of shells a year.

ursusguy said:

---

Man, I loved shooting and prepping the .270 WSM my uncle loaned me for my elk hunt (and it did great on my bull). That Weatherby and scope were the easiest sighting in I've ever done. But holy hell it was expensive. The rifle either loved or hated a particular load, and you could figure it out real quick, just happened to be a $40-50 experiment. It really liked any of the deer appropriate rounds, but dear Lord finding an elk appropriate round it liked was a pain. I like walking into a store and simply buying a box of ammo, outside of 2-3 loads that are pretty easy to find (mostly deer load), you pretty well had to order online.....part lof the challenge was my uncle had only shot the rifle a handful of times, so he really didn't have a good feel for where to start.

---

Damn, that's more than you spent on your scope for your regular deer rifle.

No sh--, I think I was on load 5 or 6 when I found a combo myself and the rifle liked.

mind sharing the bullet/powder/jump you ended up with? About to start working up a load for heavies in a 300wsm and not sure on a starting point. Want to run 190 ABLR or VLDH

NRD09 said:

---

mind sharing the bullet/powder/jump you ended up with? About to start working up a load for heavies in a 300wsm and not sure on a starting point. Want to run 190 ABLR or VLDH

---

I can when I get home tonight and can look at my book.

I know i settled on a 180 grain Accubond, but honestly can't remember which powder i ended up using. I shot several combinations of powders and projectiles and was more than happy when this load squared up with all 3 rounds in the same hole, because my shoulder was really starting to not like me.