i recently talked to a man who has hunted with 270's for years but changed to 25-06 a while back and says that he would never even consider a 270 again.he said that the 270 was a good close range gun(100yd and less)he said that youll have bullets all over the target after this range.i ve never really shot past 100 but i have noticed the groups do get alot bigger at 150 is there any truth to this or is his bad aim???

blakeroth,

Welcome to the forum. No thats not true. In general the accuracy of the various cartridges are about the same both at close range and long range.

If you think about it they are just mechanical devices and those two are quite similar to each other.

The 270 Winchester is about eighty years old and remains one of the most popular. That says it all.

I have a pre-64 M70 in .270 that will keep factory 130gr Remington bullets inside three inches at 300 yds, and do it very, very regularly if I do my part. I bought it; took it to the range with every weight bullet I could lay my hands on; saw what it did with those remingtons and went and bought all the rest of the store's stock in that lot number.

I don't believe that 270 is any more or less accurate than 30-06 or .280. They all have a reputation for good accuracy, but don't have the mystique the .308Win has for the characteristic. The .270 will do everything a 7mmRM will do with a bullet that weighs 30grains less. Finn Aargard wrote that the biggest Eland he had seen killed was with a .270. It is placement that kills. If you can hit with it dependably with a bullet heavy enough to penetrate your game through and through, you'll be well served. Ku-dude

blakeroth, welcome to the forum. I am an absolute 270 fanatic. But dont let that fog my post . I would like to say that the condition your friend has stated does not occure with ANY particular cartridge. A projectile could be dammaged by rifling/bore/throat problems and the accuracy could detiorate exp. from then on, but this would be due to THAT rifle and not the cartridge.

I'm definitely NOT a .270 fan, just doesn't do it for me. Witha all due respect, your friend either has a bad rifle or he needs a bit more practice. I am a huge .280 fan though (same, same really) & it has a bad rep. for inaccuracy. Mine has dotted off severl sub 2" groups....@ 300yds. This is a very lt.wt. custom M70. It's more about the rifle & shooter than the cartridge.

AGREED!!

I have never been a "fan" of the 270, but I never let personal preference create opinions of it. The 270 just plain works and you can't argue with that. I am a huge fan of the .338 WinMag but cannot deny that the 270 in my rack with shoot groups sometimes half the size of any of my other rifles. As long as the ammunition is straight and consistant the rifle is what does the work in the accuracy department. If he notices that groups get larger as range increases then he is right, that's what happens. Even if he is a good shot, a group of 1-1.5" will not stay that size at 200 and 300 yards.

Welcome, Blake.



The gentleman you spoke with was either misguided, mistaken, or F.O.S.



To get the real skinny on what long range hunters think of the .270, browse the Big Game forum for threads on preferred cartridges for sheep, goats, and pronghorn. The .270 has a very healthy following among those who so endeavour.



Odds are, for anything you want to use the .25-06, the .270 will do just as well, if not better.



Now, go forth and slay with whichever you choose.



RSY

One possible explanation is he may have been shooting 150gr bullets in a slow-twisted barrel. Tell him to try 130s.

I detest stupid ignorance.....

I've been shooting the .270 Winchester since 1978, and it's one of my all-time favorite cartridges. I don't know who the gentleman in question is, but he's absolutely full of it in terms of comparing the .270 Win. to the .25-06.

The truth is, there is absolutely NOTHING that the .25-06 will do that the .270 Win. won't do better, especially on game bigger than varmints.

Accuracy at extended range depends on a host of factors that are not cartridge-related at all. The specific rifle in question, the scope, the ammunition, target selection, the guy pulling the trigger, etc..........

AD

this guy was FOS. People have been trying to out perform the 270 ever since it came out, yes there are cartridges that will trump it but along with that come more recoil, more muzzle blast, and more ammo expense. look at the ballistics of this caliber you will find that it will take a magnum caliber to out perform the maximum point blank range MPBR of the 270. and even most magnums may at best add 25 yards to the MPBR. the 270 is often the benchmark to compare to and what many new cartridges where designed to perform close to. as you might have guessed I don't care for magnums. I have looked at every cartridge 30 cal and smaller, there is nothing short of a magnum that will shoot flatter and hit with more retained energy. Yes the 280 is in there but they are so close in size that essentially there is little speakable difference. As for accuracy, If I had to place one accurate shot and it absoluty had to hit, my 270 would be the gun I would grab.

I started shooting the .270 Win. in 1968 and have owned a number of rifles in that chambering and shot many others. I even once owned a "Jack O'Connor" style remodeled and restocked Mod. 70 by Al Biesen and all of my other .270s have been Pre-64s, as well. This is, along with the .280 Remington, my second favourite cartridge, after the .338 Win Mag..

I have shot so many groups under .5 moa with factory ammo, in older, second hand, non-pampered rifles that NOBODY is going to convince me that the .270 is somehow a non-accurate cartridge, what poppycock.The old Norma ammo in the 60's with the silver coloured jackets used to shoot .3-.4" @ 100 yds. consistently, this with a Leupy 3x.

I have known men, here in B.C., that bought .270s right after WWII and shot them into the 1990s, killing numbers of Grizzlies, Moose, Elk, Mtn. Caribou, Sheep, Mtn. Goat and Deer, usually with one shot each. A friend of mine shot a six-point Bull Elk on Sheep Mtn. near Elko, B.C. some years ago and knocked him ass over tea-kettle, deader than hell with the 130 gr. bullet.

I will never be without a matched pair of .338s and of .270s as long as I can hunt and shoot. The guy who gave you this advice either has a barrel problem-possible- defective bullets-unlikely-or is full of what the great gunwriter, Bob Hagel, euphemistically called "corral dust"!

BOB HAGEL also wrote that the Hornady Interlock bullets did not hold together, and Hornady had put all it's eggs into one basket. And that in every test he did the Hornady's came apart.

YET writers now (and more importantly, experienced members on this board) will tell you the Hornady Interlock is TOP-NOTCH!!


Maybe Mr. Hagel WASN'T always right?????

The most accurate factory bolt action rifle I have ever owned just happened to be a 270 winchester.

Maybe someone who has read some Jack O could shed some light on whether the 270 is a short-range caliber...

Before Jack Oconnor passed on, he found a better 270 so to speak and switched....to the 280. Yep, he sure did.

As I wrote earlier this year in another thread, the 270 Win is best compared to a 300 Win mag...therin lies its strength. In such a comparison the 270 shoots bullets of sectional density equal to those of the 300 Win Mag to the same velocity with the same trajectory. So:

90 gr 277 = 110 gr .308
100 = 125
110 = 135
120 = 150
130 = 165
140 = 175
150 = 185
160 = 200
180 = 220

The decreased weight of the 270 nets about 20% less kenetic energy, but at all ranges the sectional density times velocity is the same for both calibers given the weights listed above. This means that penetration is the same, given equal bullet construction. Since penetration is far more important than energy the rounds work about the same in the field and it is quite difficult to tell the difference in wound channel between the two without an autopsy.

This is one reason why the 130 gr 270 gets a bad rap for meat destruction...you get the same effect with a 300 Win mag using 165 grainers at 3100 to 3200 fps.

You will also note that they are close in expansion ratio, and use the same powders to drive bullets of equal sectional density to the same velocity. The 300 uses 33% more powder and generates 70% more recoil in rifles of equal weight. This leaves the thoughtful hunter wondering whether the 20% increase in kinetic energy is worth all the muscle of the 300.

Finally, although both rounds are very efficient given their respective calibers and case capacities, the 270 still keeps much of this efficiency in a 22 inch bbl while the 300 does not. Hence the 270 is chambered in many user friendly mountain rifles and is generally quicker and a lot easier to carry.

If you go to any range, and pit a good 270 against a good big game caliber of equal or greater authority at hitting a playing card at 300 yards ON THE FIRST SHOT using factory ammo, it will usually win. I don't know why this is true, but it is certainly my experience.

No, it is not a DG round, but even with a 338 Win Mag an angry Brown Bear is a dicey situation and if you don't have the same amount of pucker with the 338 that you would with the 270 you are probably in more trouble than you think...

Bob Hagel didn't say Hornadys came apart. He did say he didn't see much difference in the way they acted as compared to Speer and Sierra game bullets. Personally, I agree with him. Even today! I've had Hornady Interlocks shed their jackets just like Speer and Sierra.

Jack O'conner did not "switch" to the .280. He did test the round saying he could not get the same velocity with the 140 grain bullet out of it as he could with the 130 out of the .270. His comment was that of the three, .284, 280 and .270 if similar bullets are used any difference between the three cartridges would be a matter of imagination.