I won't get into 270 vs. 270 wsm velocity

[startrek1761d]

O.K. everybody has their opinion of the 270 wsm, I don't really care if one is only 100 fps faster than the other, all I care about is raw accuracy. I want something in .270 caliber and I'm looking at a Tikka T3 in 270 wsm, I am not worried about 7 extra grains of powder or any other disadvantages of this round. I have never seen a benchrest rifle in 270 and of 3 family members that can all shoot have never had a 270 win that is what I would define as accurate (i.e. 1/2" 3 shots at 100 yds. Is the wsm more inherently accurate than the 270 win?

 

[el matador]

I have heard theories about why the WSM should be more accurate. Shorter case=stiffer action, more uniform powder ignition, etc. There are dozens of things that affect accuracy in a rifle and the merits of the short action are far less significant than the quality of the rifle and ammunition. Either caliber will shoot extremely well if you have those. If accuracy is the goal I would lean toward the original 270. It's going to have slightly less recoil which can only help accuracy. Also it's easier to find precision reloading dies and brass. Speaking of availability, 270s do suffer quite a bit in that regard. Long range bullets are much harder to come by than 7mm or 30 caliber stuff.

 

[Dr. Vette]

I have never seen any proof, any testing, any science behind any caliber being more "inherently accurate" than another. Frankly, I think it's "shooters legend," the hunter's equivalent of an urban legend. Gunwriters still spout off about it but that doesn't mean a thing in the real world. The corollary would be an inherently inaccurate cartridge but you never hear about those existing so...

I believe that accuracy has a lot to do with the rifle, a lot to do with the shooter, but little to do with the actual chambering itself.

Find a 270 caliber rifle you want and shoot it, whether 270 Win, 270 WSM or 270 Weatherby. They'll all shoot as well as the rifle and the shooter let them.

 

[HARPERC]

I have never seen any proof, any testing, any science behind any caliber being more "inherently accurate" than another. Frankly, I think it's "shooters legend," the hunter's equivalent of an urban legend. /QUOTE]

Place quality ammunition in quality rifles, and they will perform similarly.

 

[bigngreen]

Accuracy goes to the 165 Matrix bullet IMO not to the case from which is launched. We use several 270's and WSM's, none have an issue with 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards, my WSM has 5 shot groups under half MOA out to 1450 yards. The WSM just buys you range IMO, you can improve the 270 Win case and be running within 50 fps of the WSM which runs more in the range of 200 fps faster than the Win. The WSM is more sensitive to neck tension than the Win and a little harder to control.

There are guys who are shooting 270's in comp and do well but it's just not pack thing to do.

 

[startrek1761d]

I have never seen any proof, any testing, any science behind any caliber being more "inherently accurate" than another. Frankly, I think it's "shooters legend," the hunter's equivalent of an urban legend. Gunwriters still spout off about it but that doesn't mean a thing in the real world. The corollary would be an inherently inaccurate cartridge but you never hear about those existing so...

I believe that accuracy has a lot to do with the rifle, a lot to do with the shooter, but little to do with the actual chambering itself.

Find a 270 caliber rifle you want and shoot it, whether 270 Win, 270 WSM or 270 Weatherby. They'll all shoot as well as the rifle and the shooter let them.

I would have to say the 6mm PPC, 308, 6.5 Swedish mauser and 222 are inherently accuate

 

[angus-5024]

I would have to say the 6mm PPC, 308, 6.5 Swedish mauser and 222 are inherently accuate

Nope.

I would say that all those chambering have mild recoil and have been build frequently in quality (target or European) rifles. The only real thing that comes in to play with the actual chambering is bore to powder capacity ratio. Less turbulence in the tube with milder chambering's. The rest is all in the quality of the build and the shooter. IMO.

A lot of records have been set with chamberings like the .284win and the .243.... I personally feel that the reason so many records have been set with the 6PPC is because it is very barrel friendly, meaning that target shooters use it a lot for cost.

 

[Dr. Vette]

I would have to say the 6mm PPC, 308, 6.5 Swedish mauser and 222 are inherently accuate

And that's your opinion. However, there are no tests or validations in existence showing this. I'm not picking on you in saying this, just pointing out that there is no objective evidence regarding the "accurateness" of any caliber as compared to another. So, for you to ask which 270 is more accurate won't end up with a definitive conclusion. In a lot of searching I have never found a test for the accurateness of a cartridge, and the problem becomes that it would be extremely expensive to do.

The 6 BR and 6 PPC are used regularly to set records so you think they'd qualify. However, if there were mass produced rifles and mass produced ammo for them available at your local stores you'd see plenty of inaccurate shooting with these cartridges too. High end custom rifles with high end handloaded ammo produces repeatable and extreme accuracy.

To get back to your original question I have two very accurate Wby Vanguards in 270 Win right now, and they're a joy to shoot. I used to own a Savage 110 in 270WSM that was also a very accurate rifle, but it wasn't as much fun to shoot as it had a stiff, notchy bolt so it was sold. I would recommend finding the rifle you like and the caliber you prefer, then matching the two.