Jim Carmichaels's recent shooting column in Outdoor Life was about an apparent lack of accuracy of the .270 mostly due to problems with commercial ammo.

Anyone else read the article and care to comment?

Who shoots commercial ammo?

I grew up reading Jim Canichael in Outdoor Life.The whole premise of tha article disturbs me as it's very poorly done..



It's probably to MOST STUPID article I have ever read in all my years of reading OL.If you read the article CLOSELY it's more of Carmicheal's .270 bashing OPINIONS than any real facts..



Carmichael is slipping into sinility..



Yes,Jim Carmichael YOUR ONE PATHETIC "test" with ONE barrel PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that the .270 is "inaccurate"..



You know what MY 25 years as rifle owner has tought me?

Well,I have shot and tuned 4 different .270s...



I have done the same for 4different .280 remingtons(one of Carmicahaels pets)



You know what? Based on MY experience with MANY more rifles than Carmichael uses in his comparison,the .270 BLEW THE DOORS off the .280s for accuracy!



Every .270 I have owned would shoot at least ONE facory load into 3/4MOA.The 280s I have owned struggled to meet 1MOA with handloads..



What does my experience with the two cartridges PROVE?



The same as Carmicheal's "test"...

Absolutely NOTHING!!!

I met Jim Carmichael a number of years ago when he was the speaker at one of our first Georgia SCI Chapter banquets. He was a nice guy and a great story teller, but I would strongly disagree if he thinks the 270 is inaccurate (even with factory loads). I presently have 8 rifles in 270 caliber (a couple of M 700's, several Pre-64 M 70's, a couple of Mausers, and a Blaser), and all are very accurate. In general, I have found the 270 to be among the most accurate factory "hunting caliber" rifles, regardless of maker.

My standard rifle for years was an old Remington ADL in 270 that I bought for the action intending to rebarrel it since it had a pit in the bore near the muzzle. I decided to see how the pit would affect accuracy before rebarreling it, and it shot so well that I decided to make it a "beater" for hard use. I put it in an early Bell&Carlson synthetic stock, and with no bedding or any other work than adjusting the trigger, it started delivering numerous 1/2" to 3/4" three shot groups at 200 yards (and a good number of 3/4" to 1" groups at 300 yards. I hunted with it all over North America before I started going to Africa, and it never failed to do whatever I asked of it. It took numerous animals from pronghorn to caribou (including the former Boone&Crockett world record Central Canada Barren Ground Caribou).

As for factory ammo, when I got my Blaser R93 in 270 I was anxious to sight the scope in and was short on time and handloads. I stopped by the local gunshop on the way to the range, and asked for a box of cheap 130 grain 270 ammo to get on paper in order to preserve my few reloads for final sighting. After getting relatively close to zero at one hundred I decided to shoot a few groups during the break-in process. Out of three groups of three shots with Remington 130 grain Core-Lokt factory ammo, the measurements were 3/8", 3/8", and 1/2". Not bad for factory ammo . By the way, the handloads shot at least as well as the factory .

I presently load over 100 different calibers, and the 270 is among the most accurate and easy to load for calibers that I have worked with.

Jim

To all who have posted here (or will):

Have you read the article? Please do so before posting so you understand where Carmichael is coming from. Perhaps someone could post the article here - I don't have a copy.
Don't believe he said the cartridge is inherently inaccurate - just that commercial ammo is.

For those that don't subscribe to the magazine, here's the article.

-Bob F.


The .270 Mystery

By Jim Carmichel

Is Jack O'connor's pet cartridge simply inaccurate?

November 2004

The .270 Winchester will celebrate its 80th birthday in 2005. During its fourscore years of existence it has gained a worldwide popularity equaled by just a half dozen or so other calibers. While other, newer cartridges have blasted onto the hunting scene with great fanfare only to trickle into obscurity within a few years, the .270, if anything, has become even more steadfastly popular.

We at Outdoor Life take special pride in the ongoing success of the .270 because it was on these pages, through the romantic phrases and sound advice of Jack O�Connor, that the .270 became a hunting icon. Not before or since has any cartridge received such unstinting praise, and it was well deserved, for as O�Connor consistently reminded his readers, a good hunting cartridge is one you can hit with. The flat-shooting .270 reduces much of the guesswork associated with shots at often unknown distances and puts the bullet on target with a potent package of energy.

Yet despite its acclaim in hunting circles, there is one category of cartridge performance from which the .270 has been curiously absent: the hyper-charged area of pure accuracy. No question about it, the .270 has accuracy aplenty to take down an antelope at 300 yards, but that is a universe apart from the degree of accuracy needed to consistently drill five holes in a 1-inch circle at that same 300 yards.

Target shooters spend a lot of time talking about the accuracy potential of various cartridges In such discussions the .270 gets no respect. It is almost as if, at some point in the unknown past, it was decreed that the .270 would never be a contender in that arena. This becomes even more mysterious when we notice that calibers on both sides of the .270�the .22, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, .30 and even the .338�have all made their mark in the world of super accuracy.

Why the Bum Rap?
Various explanations have been offered for the .270�s failure to be adopted by the accuracy elite, including the absence of finely accurate rifles and ammunition. But the fact is that the most popular target rifle of its era, Winchester�s Target Grade M-70, was offered in .270 chambering, along with other calibers. But so few were sold in .270 that Winchester took it out of its catalog in 1951.

It has been pointed out that during the era in which Winchester built target rifles, the only caliber allowed in NRA-type, high-power rifle competition was the .30/06, and therefore the .270 never had a chance to prove itself. However, when the rules were relaxed to allow other calibers, there was a rush to such calibers as the .243 Win. and .280 Rem., but not the .270.

Tim McCormack, longtime head of Remington�s Custom Shop, which turns out the finely accurate 40-X target rifles on a special-order basis, tells me that he can�t remember ever getting an order for a .270.

This echoes Winchester�s earlier failure to seduce accuracy fans with a target-grade .270. All the more strange, as reported by McCormack, 40-X target rifles have been ordered in such unlikely calibers as the .350 Rem. Mag. and even .416 Remington.

Another suggested cause of the .270�s poor headway in the accuracy department is the failure of bullet and ammo makers to provide target-grade loads and components for the .270 as they do for some other calibers. Over the years major ammo makers have offered match-grade ammo in .30/06, .308, .223 and even .300 H&H, but after a search through catalogs dating back to the 1930s, I find no such listing for the .270.

Likewise, if you scan the product list of any of the big-name bullet makers, you�ll find .270-caliber hunting bullets aplenty, but nothing in the accuracy category, as offered in other calibers.

A few years back Sierra took the leap and offered a .270 (which is actually 0.277 inches in diameter), 135-grain MatchKing bullet, but according to Adam Braverman, Sierra�s vice president of sales and marketing, sales of the .270 MatchKings have been just a trickle. Here again, as Braverman points out, the paradox of the .270 is that while .270-caliber hunting bullets remain among Sierra�s biggest sellers, the accuracy crowd remains unimpressed.

When all these aspects of the .270�s accuracy history are considered together, a pattern begins to emerge. One begins to wonder if there is something truly mysterious at work here. Or to put it bluntly, a mystery that has long tantalized arms makers and ballistic experimenters: Are there such things as inherently inaccurate calibers? And if so, is the .270 Winchester one of them?

Testing Begins
To explore the mystery of the .270, Outdoor Life undertook what in all probability is the most exhaustive investigation of the .270�s accuracy ever conducted. The investigation began with the controlled firing of hundreds of test rounds of .270 ammunition and then continued into more hundreds of rounds as our findings were checked, rechecked and confirmed.

Firing such an extensive test is not just a matter of gathering up a bunch of rifles and plinking at targets. A test protocol must be established and special laboratory-grade equipment used throughout. A standard .270 hunting rifle, no matter how good, would be unsuitable because the rifle�s accuracy, or lack thereof, would be a major factor and would almost certainly skew test results.

Accordingly, we had a test rifle built with an extra-heavy SAAMI spec barrel (the type used in industry test ranges) with a 1-in-10-inch rate of twist, fitted to a �blueprinted� Remington 700 action. The assembly was then fitted in a heavy H-S Precision stock with the receiver bedded into a rigid aluminum cradle. The shape and structure of the H-S stock allowed the 17-pound rifle to be fired from benchrest-type supports or clamped in our 250-pound, free-recoiling Clerke machine rest.

This custom .270 test rifle is identical to our test rifles in other calibers, sometimes known as �slaves,� which typically are capable of 100-yard, 5-shot groups smaller than a half inch with �calibration� ammo. This is specially loaded ammunition of known accuracy that is used to calibrate or confirm that the test rifle is at peak performance at the beginning of each series of test groups.

On The Range
After a few test loads were tried, the calibration load selected was the 135-grain Sierra MatchKing, 55 grains of IMR-4831, Winchester primer and new, previously unfired Winchester cases. During initial confirmation a series of six 5-shot groups were fired rapidly without cleaning the barrel or allowing it to cool. The purpose was to determine whether the barrel had any tendency to shift point-of-impact or lose accuracy when hot or badly fouled. If any of the six groups had been larger than 0.750 inches (�-inch), the barrel would have been replaced. The largest group of the series measured 0.682 inches, with the average of the six groups being 0.624 inches. (Consistency is as much the essence of a good calibration load as accuracy.) The last group of the series, fired when the barrel was extremely hot and fouled, was one of the smallest, indicating we had a reliable test rifle.

Our test protocol required four 5-shot groups fired consecutively at 100 yards with each load we tested. At the end of every 20 shots the barrel was cleaned and cooled. The firing series was divided into two parts: handloaded ammo�to test bullets�and factory loads. Factory-loaded ammunition was tested first, and from the beginning there were disappointments.

Brands Vary Widely
There are far too many brands, bullet weights and styles of factory-loaded ammo to test them all, so a cross- section of brands was tested. Mainly we tested the newer, top-of-the-line offerings with popular styles of bullets ranging from 130 to 150 grains.

It was fascinating to discover the wide differences in accuracy within a particular brand. For example, while Winchester�s Supreme-grade load with 130-grain Ballistic Silvertip averaged a tidy 1.114 inches, the 140-grain Fail Safe load could do no better than 2.700 inches.

Across the spectrum of factory-loaded ammo, groups tended to range in the 2-to-2�-inch category. It was almost as if the ammo industry had decreed that the accuracy of .270 cartridges should be about 2� inches�no better, no worse. I expect this falls within the mysterious �within our specifications� category used by some makers to explain�or excuse�ammo of mediocre accuracy. I also strongly suspect that this is much of the cause of the .270�s reputation for bum accuracy�a situation made all the more peculiar when the same bullets, presumably identical to those loaded at a factory, handloaded to the same overall length, proved measurably more accurate. To be fair, this was not always the case, with the accuracy of some factory loads being virtually identical to handloads with the same bullet.

All handloaded ammo used in our test followed a strict loading regimen. Bullets of the same weight were loaded with weighted charges of the same propellant and seated to the same overall length in new, previously unfired cases. The type of propellant and the charge weights selected for the various bullet-weight categories were those widely recommended and considered optimum by reloading guides. The only concessions made to gain top accuracy with handloads were rounding the case necks, individual hand seating of primers, use of a Redding benchrest-type, bullet-seating die for best alignment and, as mentioned, weighing each propellant charge.

Test Results
Predictably, the handloaded ammo was more accurate than the factory loads, with a few exceptions. As with other calibers, certain brands, weights and styles of bullets performed better than others. In no instance did a group with handloaded bullets measure as large as 2 inches, and groups measuring less than an inch were common.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of our test series was the accuracy of the .270 with a wide range of bullet weights. Whereas sub-MOA groups were common with bullets in the 130-to- 150-grain range, there was similar accuracy with bullet weights of 90 and 110 grains, indicating the uncommon versatility of the .270. The Sierra �Varminter� and Speer �TNT,� both 90-grain hollowpoints, delivered groups nearing a half inch. Our test load for these light bullets (61 grains of IMR-4831, yielding an MV of over 3,400 fps) would be devastating for woodchucks and other small game animals.

On the final day of test firing, we celebrated by varying from our strict protocol and entering two additional rifles in the race, one being a rare sample of Winchester�s M-70 Target model. Mounted with a 15X Unertl target scope of similar vintage, the M-70 produced a good first test group, with its first two shots overlapping. But even with our super-accurate calibration load, the final group, and those following, measured over 2 inches. This may well explain why there were so few orders for that model.

The other rifle was a standard-grade prewar M-70 made about the time Jack O�Connor began writing for Outdoor Life. How well did it shoot? Well, let�s put it this way: I�d put it up against any of today�s factory-produced .270�s. If you want to wager against it, bring plenty of cash.

Article URL:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/shooting/article/0,19912,768584,00.html

here is a link to the article



[url=http://www.outdoorlife.com



and here is a quote from the article:



Perhaps the biggest surprise of our test series was the accuracy of the .270 with a wide range of bullet weights. Whereas sub-MOA groups were common with bullets in the 130-to- 150-grain range, there was similar accuracy with bullet weights of 90 and 110 grains, indicating the uncommon versatility of the .270. The Sierra �Varminter� and Speer �TNT,� both 90-grain hollowpoints, delivered groups nearing a half inch. Our test load for these light bullets (61 grains of IMR-4831, yielding an MV of over 3,400 fps) would be devastating for woodchucks and other small game animals.

Quote:

---

---

MAby I'm not reading this right but I get the impression from the article that thay liked the .270



sorry about the link not working



Simdow

I'd like to see the same test done with his beloved .280 Rem. for contrast.

And, no, the article does not seem overtly negative to me, either. Headlines and kickers serve one purpose, only; and that is to grab the attention of a peruser and turn him into a reader of that article. Looks like it worked.

RSY

Thanks for posting the article. The article proves once again why I stopped getting outdoor magazines about the time that O'Connor passed on.



I got nothing out of it. It does not make sense that one cartridge is a lot more or less accurate than another if shot in similar rifles. For instance I have an old 270 that shoots factory ammo into MOA. If that article were published in "Precision Shooting" Carmichael would get hammered by the readers.



If anything it's a dig at O'Connor. What else would you expect?

Hi -



I think what we have here is a great example of a "fluff" article...one written to create attention, but wthout any clear point or new info. ...Kind of along the line of the old .270 vs. 30-06 space-filler genre of articles.



I also think it is a great example of just how important it is to not base one's opinions as to the merits of rifles or cartridges on just a few specific rifles, or a few different loads in even a large number of rifles.



I owned one of the very few Model 70 .270 Target rifles produced by Winchester, along with several in other chamberings. To tell the truth, I think they were misnamed. There was no apparent improvement in the "target rifle" quality over any of the other M70s then available. There still isn't, as far as I can tell. They might have done slightly better late in a high-power match because of the heavy barrel maintaining a more even temperature, but they certainly were not generally more accurate than the standard barrel weight Winchesters when it comes to "small group of the day" ability.



[One of my M70 match guns which did shoot pretty well was a pre-'64 "Bull Gun" in .300 H&H. I have shot some remarkable strings of V-bulls with it at the mid-ranges (400 through 600 yards), but I have owned equally accurate lightweight target rifles of other makes as well.]



I still shoot several .270s, and find they are no better or worse than any other similarly put-together rifle with similar quality bullets. Like any other individual rifles, some like one load, some another, some rifles like many different loads, and a few don't seem to like any load.



It is the same with most factory ammo, though there WAS some notoriously BAD (poor quality) ammo out there. One example was the Hirtenberger produced ammo sold in South Africa and the US under the Musgrave label. I have a Musgrave bolt action magazine rifle which shoots pretty well with factory Winchester ammo, and with both Hornady 130 gr. and Nosler Partition 150 gr. bullets, both backed by copious amounts of H-4831.



With the Musgrave ammo, which one would think should be a pretty good match for Musgrave chambers/barrels, it was a worse than 3" grouper on average at 100 yards. I thought maybe it was just that particular rifle not liking that particular fodder. So, I tried the Musgrave stuff in all my .270's.



It is about 10 shades darker than evil in all of them. In a FW pre-'64 M70, it was still a producer of larger than 3-inch groups at 100 yards, and that particular little gun will pretty often produce groups of 1.25-inch or slightly smaller at 200 yards with either the Hornady or Nosler Partition bullets.



As I bought two cases of the Misgrave stuff before trying it out (I'm a sucker for low prices), I still have 30 boxes or so on hand, and figure I'll be buried with them joining me in the box...I'm sure not gonna go target shooting or hunting with them and I don't do that much plinking with the .270.



Anyway, it speaks well of the forum members here that pretty much all seem to have sorted out exactly how much importance to assign to this rather lightweight article.



Best wishes,



Alberta Canuck

Okay, so now I have been shamed into reading the article.



And my response is still..."Who shoots commercial ammo?"



So the guy got lousy results from factory ammo. What's new?



So the guy got great results from handloaded ammo. What's new?



He would have obtaind the same results no matter what caliber he picked.



As for the .270's popularity ... sure it is popular, or was. Three of the people I hunt with use Winchester 70's in .270. One of them routinely gets his deer and antelope without any difficuly. Another will eventually get a deer or antelope if you give him enough ammunition, and the last of the three has never gotten a deer or an antelope.



Can the caliber be blamed for this as well as the poor accuracy of the factory ammo? I don't think so...



This article is just another reason I have let ALL my gun ragazine subscriptions die (a long time ago) and another reason why I say there are no good gun writers anymore.



If it were a car ragazine (which have become as useless as gun ragazines) it would be the same as if I had written an article stating that the old Z-28 Camero (which I bought at Barrone Chevrolet, totally stock) was a piece of junk compared to the Z-28 that I bought from Penske Chevrolet (and had been tuned and worked by the Penske team).



As for the 2-1/2" groups at 100 yards ... well, there was a time, and I remember it well, when that was an accomplishment! And a 1" group at 100 yards was only given by the hand of God to a select few shooters.



Hell, Weatherby still advertises the great accuracy of his rifles by promising a 1-1/2", 3-shot group, at 100 yards.



Sure, I like sub 1/2", 5-shot groups at 200 yards, and that is the goal for around 99% of my long guns. However, we gotta remember one thing...(maybe two or three):



#1) The average hunter wouldn't be able to judge 100 yards from 200 yards in the field;

#2) If a rifle shoots a 2 MOA group, then at 500 yards it will still hit the kill zone of most North American big game animals;

#3) Groups don't mean diddly when hunting, it is the first bullet that counts.

I like my 270. I've got sub 1/2 inch groups with it in the past. But since jim c. doesn't get good accuracy I guess I'd better get rid of it.

I think the thing that gets me is the claim that the 270 has a bum rep for accuracy. WTF does anyone here even the 280 fans think the 270 has a bum rep for accuracy. I have never heard or seen that. I have heard the opposite in that most 270's are built around shooting a 130 grain bullet. there is no other caliber that so universally shoots the 130 gr bullet, so it has been assumed that this has helped the 270 in the accuracy department. How many 270's out there will not shoot a 130 of your choosing behind 60 grains of 4831, into respectable groups??Mine sure does.

Wahl, Mr Jim said a while back that bench rest shooters were the primary reason for all advances in riflery and all enhancements in optics.
After 40+ years of hacking out articles, you've got to find something to write about. Have a care for the old man.
Jack got kinda testy in his old age.

When Carmichel brought out his first book; in one chapter he was describing the various hunting rifles and action types. He came out totally against anyone hunting with single shot rifles for anything but varmints. He did opine that if one wanted to take on the likes of a Cape Buffalo or other dangerous critter, that that would be "very sporting". As I've been hunting with a Ruger #1 for several years, I figured he was just a rectal oriface who didn't know his rectal oriface from a hole in the ground. My opinion of him still stands.
I remeber very well when he began writing for Outdoor Life, his first article was how humbled he felt that the great Jack O'Connor had recommended that he be Jack's replacement. Guess he forgot who put him where he is today.
The .270 has never been one of my all time favorite cartridges, being more a fan of the "boring" 30-06, but I do have two rifles in .270. One, a 1973 FN Mauser from F.I.E. will still put three 150 gr. Nosler Partitions into .75". The other, a Ruger #1A will put three 150 gr. Sierra Gamekings into .80". Neither rifle will shoot any 130 gr. bullet worth a damn, so I don't bother with them.
I guess I'll just have to take one of my "inaccurate" .270s out on my next deer or elk hunt, should I be fortunate enough to draw a tag.
Paul B.

Everybody else has pretty much covered my feelings on Carmichael's article. But I'll comment anyway . In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a huge 270W fan, own a pile of 'em, and have kilt a fair number of critters with the 270. In the mid eighties I met Jim Carmichael and spent some time talking with him. A couple months later we talked on the phone about sheep hunting in Colorado. For what ever reason, Jim Carmicheal is not a fan of the 270W. It was apparent in his articles when he replaced O'Conner and was certainly apparent when I spoke with him. Jim was a big proponent of the 338W on elk. Even back then I had killed roughly a dozen elk with my 270's and knew that even in the event of a tough shot at a fair distance--with appropriate bullets--a 270W would do just fine.

1. Indeed, their has been very little R&D and component development for competitive shooting with the .270W--it seems to be a "tweener" cartridge for most shooting classes.

2. The 270W was a VERY high pressure big game cartridge in its day (and still is). Until recent times, most competitive shooting world leaned towards moderate pressures as the most accurate.

3. Our opinions are formed by our experiences--I have NEVER had factory ammo shoot worth a gol'darned in any of my 270W's. Just my experience.

4. At any given time, only a relatively few cartridges are popular in competitive shooting--and there are a number of cartridges that have never been popular. The 280Rem is a great round, but I don't recall it ever being real popular with the benchrest crowd. The 6.5-284 is one of the "hot cartridges" in long range shooting, but it doesn't automatically make the 284W a dog .

5. Even building a semi-SAMMI spec rifle does not automatically make it a world beater. If that was the case, every "hunnert yard" benchrest shooter would just build a firearm like Outdoor Life paid for--including Sammi spec ammo, and bingo!--close one eye and shoot. The amount of load development that goes into competitive shooting of the old 222Rem or now the 22/6 PPC's is mindboggling.

So, I'll just take the article for what it's worth, interesting, but not really proving or disproving much.

Casey

Well, I just finished reading the article and thanks for posting it. I only subscribe to a couple of shooting rags & OL isn't one of 'em. I apreciate the article anyway.

First of all I'm a dyed in the wool .270 & .338 mag. fan. My .270 is my sheep/caribou "go to" rifle and is a Ruger Mod. 77, glass bedded with a Timney trigger. I've owned several .270's in the past & neve could get "benchrest groups". Also, I've always used 150 gr Partitions so that could well be a large portion of the reason. This is a hunting rifle - not for bench rest. With the current one I own, my accuracy was inconsistant & I tried everything I could think of using the "commonly accepted" powders - ie., the 4831's & 4350's. Nothing really worked. In desperation, I finally tried some Rldr-22 and voila! I finally got groups consistantly in the 1" area with this powder & playing with seating depth. Factory Loads? Don't remember the last time I fired one in any rifle. Now after the weather warms up (likely in March), I hope to try it with some 150 gr. Northforks.

Trying to objectively look at the article, I didn't see it as a slam on the .270 however I do know Carmichael doesn't like the chambering. Then again, I don't care for the .280 but what do I know? BTW, I've been told by a gunsmith I did business with that the .270 was never a really accurate round and he made comments about lack of quality bullets too.
Bear in Fairbanks

CaseyC

Quote:

---

So, I'll just take the article for what it's worth, interesting, but not really proving or disproving much.

---

That pretty much sums it up.