Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
One of Us |
I realize the .270 is not considered to be one of the inherently accurate cartridges. Very popular hunting cartridge: yes. I have 3 of them and have hunted with them more than any other cartridges. Now I'm getting more and more into coyote hunting where the target is smaller. One of my .270s is a Hart barrelled custom installed by a top notch barrel man, but quite a few years ago. Now I want to get the best accuracy the cartridge, the gun and the shooter is capable of. So the question, what is realistic in terms of accuracy of this almost 100 year old cartridge assuming the loads are what the rifle likes? thanks | ||
|
one of us |
I have settled on a Winchester in 270 24" barrel it had a Tupperware stock and now is all dressed up in walnut. I have shot a few cyotes with varmin rifles but lately the only time I see them is during deer season. The 140gr BTSP I use for deer works great shot two a couple years ago at over 150yrs I m using 140gr Hornady bullets, H100V powder and Rem brass, nothing fancy. 3 shot groups are under 1" | |||
|
One of Us |
I have a cheap Walmart Remington 710 that shoots 1 moa with my loads. 130g SST/53.7g IMR 4831. I had no expectation or that accuracy when I bought it in 2004. Doug Wilhelmi NRA Life Member | |||
|
One of Us |
I have loaded for about a half dozen different 270s over the past 40 years including Winchesters, Remingtons, Rugers, Brownings, and a custom Mauser. Using 130, 140, and 150 grain bullets, all of them have shot 1" or better groups at 100 yards. These are all sporter or light barrels. | |||
|
One of Us |
While I have rifles in the safe that will go under .5" for a 5 shot group at 100 yards, my two .270s of the past were not even close. The first one was a Rem 721 that would produce 1.5-2.0" groups at 100 yards was the most accurate and the last one was a Ruger early Model 77 that could consistently stay under 3.0" at 100 yards. Both shot some critters but the Remington shot the most and most of those were under 200 yards. I don't think that the .270 as it comes stock from most OEMs of the past was a particularly accurate target round but a good game getter and that was when 300 yards was a long shot. Maybe things have improved with the latest technology but if I was interested in coyote rifles I would be looking at 22-250 or .204 that are designed from the ground up to be precision shooters for much longer ranges. You might even touch some of the long distance calibers in the 22 Valkyrie or the 6mm Creedmor for ultra long distance shooting at coyotes. I must have been very unlucky with my rifle purchases over the years as not everyone of my rifles over the years would go .5" at 100 yards as so many claim on these boards. I must have been buying my shooters from the wrong stores. | |||
|
One of Us |
Shooting 3 shot groups, I've gotten <0.75 MOA using a variety of loads. My 5 shot groups open this up to at least 1 MOA. This with my pre-64 Mod 70 featherweight. It's factory "as is" except for the cheap plastic stock I put on it. | |||
|
One of Us |
I don't pay much attention to the "not an inherently accurate cartridge" discussion on various calibers. That conflates a lot of variables into one blanket statement. That said, the Remington 700 CDL I have in 270 is one of the most spectacularly-accurate rifles I've owned. It was also made during the "dark" days of Remington, circa 2014. According to the internet, it has a lot going against it! I don't do anything special to the reloading process. The rifle, aside from a Timney trigger upgrade, is bone stock. That rifle, with nearly anything I throw at it, will easily print under and inch, with my preferred loads for all bullets at or under half that. The best of all of them is the 150gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip. I worked up a load with that honestly puts three shots into the same hole at 100 yards. It was exciting to see it develop. Oddly-enough, this rifle replaced a Ruger M77 MKII in the same caliber that wouldn't shoot for shit. However, the best accuracy I ever got out of the Ruger was with Federal Premium 140gr. TBBC factory ammo. It shot three into about 5/8". If your rifle is of quality design and you are a patient and attentive handloader, you can embarrass quite a few others with the accuracy. _____________________________________________________ No safe queens! | |||
|
One of Us |
If talking high levels of accuracy there are a couple of things to consider. I have had bench styl rifles in most calibres up to and including 375 H&H. I think what you are saying right if talking about a class or category of calibres, say fromthe 270 to 300 Winchester. However, a 224 and 6mm will beat these. One reason is recoil and the forces put on the scope/mounts/bedding. Another is the heavier the bullet and powder charge in relation to the rifle weight the further the gun moves back while the bullet is moving up the barrel. Others are how suitable are available powders for the calibre. Also variety of barrel twists readily available. However, in similar categories of calibres such as 270 through to 300 Winchester you need a very accurate rifle and do a real lot testing and across a large number of rifles to see a difference and the difference will be small. If I had a rifle made by the same gunsmith, same barrel brand/weight, same action etc. and one in 270, one in 7 mm Remington and one in 300 Winchester and you could also incluse 7-08, 280 Rem and 308 then I would not make any bet as to which rifle would be the most accurate. | |||
|
One of Us |
I think we're aligned on that point. That was the original intent of my last post. "Calibers" get a bad rap for being inaccurate, when really there are a myriad of things that play into that. Recoil, for instance, is the shooter's problem, not the cartridge's. The same could be said about rifle design, twist rate, bullet choice, or powder selection. Anyway, to the OP's original question, I'd expect nothing less than stellar accuracy from that Hart 270. You shouldn't even be considering 1 MOA; well under would be my expectation. _____________________________________________________ No safe queens! | |||
|
One of Us |
thanks much for the good response guys. I probably should give a little more info re: my question. First, both of these 2 .270s are on pre-64 model 70 actions, my preferred action for hunting rifles. The Hart barrelled one has a heavy 26 1/2" barrel: floated barrel and bedded action in factory stock. The 2nd is my favorite for my coyote calling: a standard grade factory rifle, bedded action and floated barrel in factory stock. I love this rifle: its weight, its balance, etc. I've used it almost exclusively now for quite a few years, mostly for coyotes. It wears an early 80s Leupold 2-7. The heavy rifle wears a Leupold 2 1/2-8. I obviously handload for both. The standard rifle has traditionally shot maybe 3/4"-1" groups at 100 yards. Good enough for my hunting needs in that my shots are quite short range. However, I occasionally have longer range opportunities. Further, as I originally mentioned, the .270 cartridge, when compared to many shorter case cartridges, at least based on what I read, has never been thought of as target accurate. They're never used in any form of competition. So based on those 2 factors, the rifle model, and the caliber, I'm trying to get a fix on what is a reasonable expectation for both of these rifles. The heavy rifle has probably less than 100 rounds thru it since it was barrelled. The factory rifle, I have no idea as I bought it used many years ago, but I doubt many people shoot that type of rifle a lot. I've probably put only 100 rounds thru it since I've owned it. I used almost exclusively the classic load of 60 gr. of H4831 using 130 Nosler Ballistic Tips. I'd appreciate some more input, especially from those of you that have recently responded, who seems to have a lot of experience with the .270. I guess my bottom line question would be what is a reasonable expectation for these rifles, especially the factory rifle? Do I spend money and time for lots of load combinations in an attempt to get 1/2 minute accuracy when its just not likely to occur? Thank much. | |||
|
one of us |
Each of my 270s have a bullets that they prefer. One shoots 1/2" 3 shots groups at 100 yds. The other touches 3 at 200. Before I started reloading I tested factory ammo with these bullets. Wasn't expensive. Also found a bullet my 30-06 liked this way, too. It will touch 3 at 100. I use the most accurate rifle for long range. The other 2 really don't "need" that degree of accuracy, but nice and ups my confidence. Your decision to proceed, For me it was worth it. ________ Ray | |||
|
One of Us |
There are couple of points to make. Firstly, in competition if one calibre shoots groups that are say .05 smaller on average then that is important. However, even then it can take a few rifles to show a difference. Consider the 22 and 6mm PPCs Vs the 222 and 6 X 45 (223 necked up). I can tell you in a becnh rest rifle you would need to be a very good shooter and means very much reading conditions to show a difference. An advantage the 6mm PPC has (also the 308 another example) is gunsmiths are geared up for them. So if you hve a bench rest competition with 50 shooters then 48 of the shooters will have a PPC. If you had 48 shooters with the 6 X 45 and two with 6mm PPCs you can bet the winner will come with a 6 X 45. Simply a case if 48 out of 50 shooters have the 6 X 45 then the odds are the comination of best shooter and best rifle will be a 6 X 45. I don't know what your individual rifles will shoot. However, what I do know is whatever they do will not be improved if they were changed to 7-08, 280 Rem, 280 AI, 7mm Rem, 308, 30/06 or 300 Winchester. My favourite two calibres in "accuracy" rifles and used in the field and in rifle weights from normal hunting rifle weights up to 13 pounds or so have been the 6mm/06 and 270. The 6mm/06 is just so easy as neck down 25/06. In Australia the 270 is simply easier than the 280 Rem or 280 AI. I can sssure you have had most calibres but really no difference so for me winners are a combination of "what I just like" and what is easy to do. If I was going to go into target shooting at 1000 yards then the 7mm bore size offers a better selection of high BC bullets. In bench style rifles but with normal hunting style chamber done with JGS reamer, brass FLS so there is about .003 headspace and in 270 you can get 10 shop groups that will be 1/2" and less. Three shot groups will range from an oval hole to a 1/3rd of an inch and that is using hunting style bullets like Ballistic Tips etc. | |||
|
One of Us |
I used a 50’s Winchester Model 70 .270Win in its original stock for a number of years as one of my go to rifles. I too used H4831 and Nosler 130 grain Ballistic Tips and Partitions it was a 1 1/4” rifle. I had a custom stock built eliminating the forend screw. Still using the original standard weight barrel it became a 3/4” gun. I used it primarily for pronghorns , took it on a Yukon hunt and felt under gunned . I have now replaced it with a mod70 .264win ,really just more of the same. I found the .270 pretty accurate in sporter weight hunting rifles, not finicky, but not a target rile in sporter weight guise. Probably one of our better hunting rounds within its limits. | |||
|
one of us |
The is no reason a rifle in that chambering would not be just as accurate as any other chambering. -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
Moderator |
short answer, they tend to be very accurate, in part due to lower recoil than larger guns -- that's the draw of the 270 over the 30-06. i have a stevens 240, replaced the trigger (though it was accurate to begin with), JB weld spot bedded it, and put threadlock on the scope mounts/rings. with greenbox 130gr it's way sub moa - would it be better if i put on a new highend scope, tailored loads for it, zero'd the headspace or replaced the barrel$$$, added an amazing sniper stock, and other tricks? sure.. but when a gun is .75" 5 shoot groups, with the cheapstuff ammo, it will take cubic dollars to make it a 3/8" gun .. let's unpack these two stipulations - the 270 is considered an accurate cartridge and "inherently accurate" isn't a thing outside of bench rest competitions - the 30 ppc, on of those "inherently accurate" carts is ZERO meaningful difference than the same rifle and ammo, but chambered in the 7.62x39, if all the same care is done. how do those shoot? sub MOA?
the heck with it .. the 270 is a great round, and almost every rifle is more accurate than the shooter --- opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
One of Us |
My .270 Win Ferlach has shot many 3 shot clover shots, but in general you need consistent components. I only use Federal Match primers and Norma brass. All cut to same length and annealed every 4th shot. Overall length also plays a role. I weigh every load with a RCBS 5-10 scale from a Harrel Benchrest Powder Measure. I use Foster Die Set with Redding Competition Seater. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia