The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading 260 vs 270Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| 260 vs 270 | Login/Join |
one of us |
Is there any advantages one has over the other? Ballistic or otherwise? Any comments would be appreciated! Thanx ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} | ||
|
one of us |
Depending on your need, 250fps extra with same wgt bullets in the 270 may be an advantage................I own and shoot both. There is nothing one does the other won`t at 250yds or under on deer size game. Acually at 400 yd with like 140gr bullets in factory ammo there is only ~3" differance in drop with a 200yd zero and 200fps energy variation. They are awful close IMO. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well I guess if you were not a reloader (which everyone should be) the 270 would have an advantage in being "not so hard to find", but even that is pretty trivial. I am a die-hard 270 fan, always will be, it works for me. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have a preference for the 260, and 6.5 mm bullets. However a 260 is a slightly downloaded 270 IMHO. Both are excellent cartridges. There is no down side to either one in my opinion. Maybe the 260 is better if you prefer a short action over a long action. Besides that, both are up to the task that any decent shot placement will offer. ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif){kind=icon} ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
The 270 is right on the edge of being too powerful for deer inside of 200 yards, but has more range and flexibility than the 260. For varmints too deer, the 260 in a 24 inch barrel is very hard to beat, and has 30% less recoil than the 270. | |||
|
| one of us |
ANY 6.5mm is better than a .270, in my OPINION. | |||
|
| one of us |
Your opinion is not as cwazy as it sounds. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Too powerful? Why would you say that? | |||
|
| one of us |
No, there is no difference that any shooter or game animal can detect. | |||
|
| one of us |
org - I just think one is a bit overgunned with a 270 at moderate range when hunting deer. This is not to say that it is not extremely effective at these distances, but if one's shots are under 200 yards you can be just as effective with a smaller case in a shorter action with less recoil. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
The .270 Winchester is more powerful, more versatile, and more available. I don't see myself needing a .260 Remington, but it would surely be a great cartridge to start a lady or a youngster out on. AD | ||
|
One of Us |
If I lived in the east or midwest where my primary quarry was the wiley whitetail at typical ranges (under 100 yards) I'd be completely happy with the little 6.5-08. Here in the west where shooting distances can be longer and where seasons overlap (deer/elk) I'd always choose the more powerful 270 with a good 140 or 150 grainer... bigger engine, more payload! In fact, I think the 270 with a 150 Nosler Partition could well be as good as it gets for a one rifle Western rig. OK, add a 338 WM and 22-250 and you're done! | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Brad, Amen and AMEN to to that recommendation! AD | ||
|
| new member |
In all fairness you are comparing apple ands oranges. A more accurate comparision is between the .270 and the 6.5-06. When comparing these two cartridges (so long as you handload)I think that 6.5-06 is the better round ballistically. However if you don't handload then the .270 is better due to the abundance of commercial ammo. | |||
|
| one of us |
You can download a 270 to 260 specs and reduce recoil if you wish. But you can't upload a 260 to do what a 270 can do - Safely. The longer neck also gives it more heavy bullet flexibility. Hands down the 270 wins. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:You might be surprised on what a handloaded 260 can do! Not knocking the 270 at all. The 270 might have 50 yds on a 260 at best. A 270 with a 130 grainer at 3100 fps, and a 260 will give 3,000 to 3050 with a 120 grain bullet. The 270 normally shoots a 140 grainer at 3,000 and a 260 will send a 125 grain partition out at 3,000 fps. Comparing sectional densities of both bullets, the 270 is not much a winner, and if you compare some of the bullets and retained energy and velocity past 250 yds or so, there is not much difference in either cartridge! ( Sometimes the " statistics" go to the 260!) Bottom line is either one is a fine cartridge! | |||
|
one of us |
Seafire, Show me a safe load in a 260 that makes 3000+ fps with a 125 gr. bullet. All the load info you post on this sight is bordering on overloads. ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} [ 08-27-2003, 21:46: Message edited by: todbartell ] | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
quote:Todbartell: I'll save Seafire the trouble: 48 gr. Viht N560 3034 fps 125 gr Nosler (24") barrel) This is right out of the latest Nosler manual - pg. 187. And you now how manuals tend to be conservative... 9.3 | ||
|
| one of us |
I always figured 2900 fps would be about tops in a 22" barrel. 2550 ft-lbs is alot out of a 260! [ 08-27-2003, 21:46: Message edited by: todbartell ] | |||
|
| one of us |
No; I am not surprised what a handloaded 260 will do. Larger case capacity and larger bore diameter will shoot the same weight bullet faster; or at lower pressure to the same velocity. Powder burn physics are not myths. The larger frontal surface area also will hit harder. Penetration deltas are somewhat moot on deer. But "about" 2800 fps with a 140 grainer is max from a 260 where a 270 will push a 140 to "about" 3,000. The longer neck will also keep down on throat erosion. You will have to deep seat that 140 in a 260 neck and will thus get some gas blow by and cutting before the bullet seals as well. If I were wanting to shoot a 6.5mm - then I would argue the 6.5x55mm would be a better choice than the 260 Winchester. But; a 260 Winchester will not outperform a 270 Winchester. [ 08-26-2003, 09:49: Message edited by: Old & Slow ] | |||
|
| One of Us |
A 22" bbl'd 260 with a 125 won't break 3,000 but a 130 in a 22" bbl'd 270 will run 3,100 to 3,150... the 260 will never be a 270 despite smoke and mirror's... the no's don't get better for the 260 as bullet weight increases either! That's not to denigrate the 260, it's just to point out there's no free lunch... case capacity counts for something! | |||
|
| one of us |
Read Guns&Ammo september issue; Boddington's favorite deer cartridge: 270 Win. I agree completely. Dirk Scout From Flanders | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Brad is absolutely right, case capacity DOES count. I've heard the same sort of argument about the .308 Win. versus the .30-06; the .30-06 versus the .300 Win. Mag; and the .338-06 versus the .338 Win. Mag. as examples. If these cartridges are all carefully loaded to their potential and run over a chronograph, the bigger cartridges will be found to easily outperform their smaller-capacity counterparts across the board. After all, if capacity didn't count for anything, we'd all be packing .300 Savage rifles instead of .30-06s. Just as the .308 is no real-world .30-06 and the .338-06 is not a .338 Win. Mag., the .260 Rem. is no .270 Winchester. AD | ||
|
| <9.3x62> |
The 260 and 6.5x55 (or 57) will handle any deer-like critter under 500 pounds just as well as the 270 at any sane range. You can claim "you need the extra power" or "you like the extra recoil" or whatever, but the 270 just ain't gonna kill 'em any deader. Everyone seems to need the magic "3000 fps", as if 2800 or 2900 fps just isn't gonna get the job done. | ||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Some of us do pack 300 Savages and 308s instead of 30-06s. Maybe the 260 is no 270, or the 308 is no 30-06, ot the 280 is 7mm Mag, etc. ON PAPER. But who cares about these marginal differences on paper when game drops just as fast to the lesser of the rounds? It's just a ballistics boner - we all go through it in our teens and then we move on... Even the military seemed willing to sacrifice a bit when going from the 30-06 to the 308, which they seem perfectly comfortable using as a sniper round. I've taken and witnessed the taking of an awful lot of deer with the 243, 250-3000, and the 257 Roberts and other equally "sub-deer" rounds with 100% instant success - I guess I'm just lucky... | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:Not real clear on what you are saying here. The .308 when compared to the 30-06 is inherrently more accurate than the .30 caliber US. In gas guns, the .308 tends to go subsonic before 1,000 yards . This is the only place I can think of where the 30-06 has an edge on the 308. Contrary to popular belief, velocity does not equal accuracy. In a bolt action and for accuracy, I would choose a .308 over the 30-06. As for the .260 versus a .270, being a big 6.5 mm fan, you would think I would pick the 260 over the 270. Not so. My two attempts at a 260 were less than memorable. Just couldn't get either rifle to shoot accurately. The .270 ADL I have is ugly, original and very accurate. In my experience the 6.5 mm X 55 mm, 6.5-06 and 6.5 X .284 shoot rings around the 260. So why bother? [ 08-27-2003, 02:20: Message edited by: Phantom Duck ] | |||
|
| <allen day> |
It all depends on where you hunt deer. I've hunted a great many Texas whitetails (Hillcountry mostly) for a lot of years, and just about any reasonable cartridge does the job in this case - from the .243 on up. Same thing's true for our coastal blacktails. Lot's of our mule deer country out here is wide-open, and the opportunities at a good buck can be fleeting. You want all the edge you can get, and if you want a reasonably light rifle that is not a burden to carry or shoot, the .270, .280, and .30-06 are tough to beat. They do out-perform the smaller cartridges, as tough as that might be for some folks to swallow, and yet they still aren't at all hard to shoot well for most people. That "ballistic boner" comment is just cheap bullshit as far as I'm concerned. AD | ||
|
| one of us |
25-06! nough' said ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} woofer | |||
|
| one of us |
I know this is cheating, but its hard to talk 270 vs anything and not mention that the 280 AI is really one of the finest all-purpose rounds out there. Once you get into a long action, the 270 has an advantage in factory loaded ammo, but if you reload, its hard to justify this advantage. To quote from Nosler Manual #5: "The 280 Ackley Improved duplictes the Remington Magnum, with about a 10% reduction in powder and a great deal less recoil". All this for going up from .277 to .284 and fireforming a few cases. Oh...you can get a chamber insert for a 280 AI and shoot the 7-08 too. [ 08-27-2003, 05:17: Message edited by: Sabot ] | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
quote:I don't know what you mean by "outperform" - what is your metric? A dead deer or a 200 fps differential? We're talking deer here, not caribou, elk, or moose. Given 270 and 260 velocities... A 277 130 will kill no better than a 264 120-125, a 277 140 will kill no better than a 264 129-130, and a 277 150 will kill no better than a 264 140. Assuming of course that both bullets arrive at the target. This last concern does not necessarily indict the (slightly less flat-shooting) 260 either - hence my comment about the military's choice of the 308 over the 30-06. | ||
|
| One of Us |
quote:9.3 you're confused. Most of us are answering the original question while you're assuming this is about deer cartridges. Read the above... no where is a deer mentioned. Pop from Wyoming wanted to know if one has any advantage over the other as well as any additional comments. This is quite simple. All the advantages, except for a small reduction in recoil and noise, lay with the 270. Since the poster lives in WY and not WV it can be assumed he may have a chance at elk or moose with either cartridge. Personally I'd be content to hunt elk or moose with a 270 for the rest of my life but I'd not feel the same with a 260, fine cartridge though it may be. THE 270 DOES "OUTPERFORM" THE 260 BECAUSE IT PUSHES HEAVIER BULLETS AT HIGHER VELOCITIES... why is that hard for you to accept? It may not mean much on deer under two hundred yards but on bigger game over 200 yards the differences between the two will begin to show up. [ 08-27-2003, 09:19: Message edited by: Brad ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Brad, et al. On game performance, the only difference is the foot pounds mentioned on a chart. I own and shoot, the 260s, the 6.5 x 55s, the 6.5 x 57, the 270 and the 7 x 57. While some can argue more powder capacity in the 270 case, the 260 crowd can argue efficiency in the smaller case. You need slower powder in a 270 to accomplish what Mid range powders can accomplish in a 260. As far as heavier bullets in a 270? How do you figure? No one makes a 180 grain or 170 grain bullet for the 270 any more. Bullet ranges for the 270 are from 90 grains to 160 grain Nosler. For the 260, they range from 85 grains to 160. People that argue that the 260 or any 6.5 is not as flat shooting as a 270 never worked with the 6.5's. Differences are like arguing over minute fractions, either way. Both are dam fine cartridges. I would never kick one over the other any day. If more case capacity floats your boat, then go with the 270. If efficiency floats it, then go with the 260. Either way, on proper shot placement with like bullets neither one will do a superior job over the other. Statistics don't drop field game. The guy before who said arguing points like this is like watching the special olympics, has it correct. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Todd: I see that you have already had pointed out the velocities your questioned in the Nosler manual by Mr. 9.3 x 62. As far as all the loads that I post on this site are bordering on over loads, evidently you don't read some of the ones that I use 4198 or 3031 in 7 x 57s or 6.5 x 55s, or 8 x 57s with Velocities at 1800 to 2000 fps. Or the 30/40 Krag at 1900 fps. I handload and experiment with loads at both ends, as I want to know what my rifle will do, and do with what I call safely. I am the one who shoots it, and I am not interested in blowing my head off. Yeah sometimes I push parameters a little on the upper end, but frequently then after I am criticized and then show that person that some new load info came up with the same load if not even higher than I had, they usually don't have much to say then. Both of the 260s that I load for carrying in the field, are Rugers. They have a one in 8 twist from the factory. Both were also throated out to be able to take full advantage of the rifles magazine. So in my 260s I am probably not seating a bullet as deep as others, and am closer to touching the rifling also. But I do that for most of my rifles. You strike me as you know what you are doing so it should not be rocket science to you. And weren't you the author of the thread on comparing the 25/06 to the 260 and announced your preference for the 260 on that one. If so, then saying the 260 takes a back seat to the 270 has me a little confused. 100 to 150 feet per second at the muzzle is not going to make any caliber superior over another in the real world at all. All of us in here should have enough experience to know that. | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
quote:Surely you recognize that threads often contain sub-threads that precipitate discussions only fleetingly related to the original post. If this is not obvious to you, I'm not sure what can be done. Somewhere along the line someone made the comment that the 270 was a favorite and/or ideal deer round. I am addressing that issue, for surely if the 260 cannot be the equal of the 270 with respect to deer, then the greater thread is entirely superfluous. Next, no where have I denied that the 270 has the modest ballistic edge. On the contrary, I've even explicitly quantified this at about 200 fps (which is perhaps even a bit generous to the 270). I argue that this "on paper" edge is negligible in the field. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Again, on the contrary, this ballistic difference will begin to disappear (not grow as you claim) beyond 200 yards. Faster projectiles slow faster, and, as you certainly know, the BC and SD for premium bullets such as the partition favors the 264 140 over the 277 150 (for larger game). What are "all" these advantages that lay with the 270? Seems to me that recoil, noise, length, weight, barrel wear, powder consumption, SD, and inherent accuracy are all in the 260s favor - I think the ONLY "advantage" to the 270 is 100-200 fps. The Swedes (and many others) have been happily hunting moose with the 6.5x55 for over 100 years now... | ||
|
| one of us |
If you compare a similar 6.5 140 gr bullet at 2800 fps to a .270 150 gr bullet at 2900 fps , you will see a whopping 150 ft lbs and 1 inch trajectory edge to the larger caliber at 400 yards. It's hard to say that you would ever see much difference in actual results in the field .I really like the way the little .260 can approach .270 performance in a short action with 10 grains or so less powder . Like Allen , I think the .260 is very hard to beat for a youngster or a lady hunter . On the other hand , factory ammo and compenents will always be easier to get for the .270 ................. | |||
|
| one of us |
seafire, quote:...or the 30-30 220 gr. @ 2100 fps Ok, load what you wish. quote:Comparing the 260 to the 25-06 is more fair, as you're comparing a smaller bullet at higher speeds to the 260, rather than a larger, heavier bullet at higher speeds in the 270. The 270 is all over the 260 ballisticly, it's there in the numbers. It shoots a 150 gr. bullet faster than the 260 shoots a 129 gr., and that makes for some more energy. 25-06 117 gr. SST @ 3100 fps Energy at 300 yards - 1480 ft-lbs 260 Rem 129 gr. SST @ 2850 fps Energy at 300 yards - 1515 ft-lbs 270 Win 150 gr. SST @ 2850 fps Energy at 300 yards - 1820 ft-lbs A closer comparision would be the 7mm-08 to the 270. [ 08-28-2003, 03:41: Message edited by: todbartell ] | |||
|
| <9.3x62> |
Tod, Your point is academic. Here's another example: 260: 140 Partition @ 2800 leaves about 1600 ft/lbs at 300 yds 270: 150 Partition @ 2900 leaves about 1800 ft/lbs at 300 yds This gap will narrow further as the distance increases. The 270 has the slight upper hand in frontal area, while the 260 has the slight upper hand in sectional density. No game animal normally or sensibly hunted with these rounds will ever be able to tell the difference. Also, the 25-06 and 260 is a less sensible than the 260 and 270 because the latter couple has common bullet weights, design, etc. The 25-06 stops at 120 gr, that's pretty much where the 260 starts (at least for most big game hunting situations). A final anecdote. Some time ago, probably going on 15 years now, there was an article about shooting elk with the 30-06 vs. shooting them with the 375 HH. A controlled field experiment was done whereby a given number of elk were shot with each round, the intent being to, as best as possible, shoot the animals in the same place (broadside say). Anyway, the authors were able to determine that, on average, the elk went a few yards farther after being hit with the 30-06 than with the 375. However, the difference was quite small, only a handful of yards. This was surprising, given the rather staggering difference (on paper) between the 30-06 and the 375. | ||
|
| one of us |
260 140 gr. @ 2800 fps? Hmmmm, my 22" barrel has never seen over 2650 fps with a 140 gr. That is with 6 diff. powders and 3 diff. bullets. I stop at the book maximums. I've probably got a slow barrel, I've heard 2720-2750 fps is usual in a 22" tube. Here's another example (i know, pointless I'm sure )Taken from AlliantPowder.com 260 (22") 140 gr. Sierra BTSP @ 2690 fps (44.8 RL19) 300 yards - 1980 ft-lbs 270 (24") 150 gr. Sierra BTSP @ 3010 fps (58.5 RL22) 300 yards - 1455 ft-lbs I'm not saying a deer will shrug off a solid hit from a 260, just that the 270 is "more gun", and has an advantage at longer ranges. I disagree, the 25-06 vs. 260 is more valid, as you are taking a smaller, faster caliber, and comparing it to a slightly larger, but slower caliber. They compare alot closer than 260 vs. 270. Compare sectional densities, not bullet weights. 25 cal 120 gr. (sd .260) Partition vs. 6.5mm 125 gr. (sd. .256) Partition. Sounds pretty similar to me. Here's another: (250 yard zero) 25-06 120 gr. Partition @ 3050 fps 300 yards - 1465 ft-lbs -3.6" 400 yards - 1215 ft-lbs -15.6" 260 125 gr. Partition @ 2900 fps 300 yards - 1470 ft-lbs -3.8" 400 yards - 1245 ft-lbs -16.5" 270 Win 140 gr. Partition @ 2950 fps 300 yards - 1675 ft-lbs -3.7" 400 yards - 1415 ft-lbs -16.1" And your story about the 30-06 killing elk quicker than the 375...what bullets were used in the "test". Could that have swayed the results a little? Bullet selection is most important, regardless of caliber. And as you see from the ballistic programs, the difference between different cartridges is slim. Just shoot what you like, pick a good bullet, and go hunting. [ 08-28-2003, 23:20: Message edited by: todbartell ] | |||
|
| one of us |
On a broadside through the ribs straight into the heart / lungs lab test I have no doubt the 30-06 will kill an elk "Almost" as well as a 375. A 260 or a 270 as would no doubt do "almost" as well. But shoot him in the arse going away and the game changes quickly. There have been more polar bears killed with a 0.223 remington and 22 magnum rimfires than all other cartridges combined ( Eskimos ); But I'm not about to hunt one with a .223. A gentleman also killed not 1; but 2 bull elephants with a 22 long rifle; the second on a bet after telling of the first; so that indeed can be done also. Neither bull traveled more than 250 yards. But; Don't let lab tests and "paper theory" overpower common sense. [ 08-28-2003, 07:20: Message edited by: Old & Slow ] | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |