Here is some good preseason campfire fodder:
I know there are a lot of .270 owners out there. All of my uncles & cousins rave about the .270 as a big game round. I grew up reading Jack O. & Elmer K. & I lean toward the Elmer K. group.
I have shot several .270s, never hunted w/ one, & I admit, they are easy shooting rigs, but I don't own one & probably never will, just too "everyone has one" for me. The .280 is just as easy to shoot & w/ bigger bullets @ the same velocity. Why do you guys who love the .270 swear by it? I'm not knocking it, I just don't get it.

[ 10-12-2002, 00:06: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

Fred,

I have never cared for them either, for EXACTLY the same reason you stated. Same for 7mm Rem mags and .30-06's. I know all three are VERY useful rounds but I like my .280 Rem, and my .338-06. The "Thinking Mans" cartridges! HA!!

Seriously....... What are the Montana plans?? I am hoping to be on leave the first week, with a trip out east to one of the permit bull areas on Wed/Thu. I'm generally off weekends and work in Helena days.

If we could get together for dinner one evening that would be great. And as always; if you need anything or get jammed up and I can be of Service call me.

FN in MT

I don't know that there's any indepth answer other than the .270 simply works. The 130gr loads are easy to shoot and deadly. While growing up, my dad always used a pre-64 Winchester model 70 featherweight .270 for Utah muley's, which is where my love of the .270 stems from. My first rifle was a Winchester Model 70 XTR in .270. I shot a few deer, and a bunch of jackrabbits and coyotes with it, but I sold it a few years later because I just didn't care for the rifle itself, and I was allured by the thoughts of a magnum. I carried a .300 Win Mag for a long time, until one day I came across what I believe to be the perfect rifle; a Remington Stainless Mountain Rifle in .270 Winchester. I still have a .300 Win Mag, but it sits in the safe because the .270 is easier to shoot and carry, plus it's just as effective for the animals I hunt and the ranges I normally shoot them at.

I've talked to a few guys who are thinking of selling their .270 Winchesters, .300 Win Mags, etc. in order to replace them with a new short magnum by any of the various makers. To me, the only real advantage of the new breed of short magnums is the fact they can be used in short actions rifles, which may make them a bit lighter and handier, but adds recoil, and cost of ammunition. In the world of ballistics, I don't believe any game animal alive could ever tell the difference between a short magnum and the old standby's. I guess the same could be said for the .270/.280/.30-06 or the .7mm Mag/.300 Mag. It simply boils down to: use whatever you're most comfortable with, put a suitable bullet in the proper place, and you'll have meat in the freezer.

[ 10-12-2002, 00:37: Message edited by: Buster ]

Good bullets is the answer. Nothing else comes in this caliber (barring the small volume of .270 Weatherby), so the bullets work a better since they have a narrower design spec -- optimized for the .270 Win. Designers of 7mms and .30 (heck, all other cartridges) have to cover a much wider range of velocities from turn of the century military loads to modern magnums.

The darn things are lightning. Why would you need anything else?

I own one .270, it's a Grade IV BAR and I've never seen anyone else hunting with one. I too like being a little different with my guns but the .270 just plain works. I've shot whitetail and antelope here in Texas with it with never a failure, and it has very low recoil. I've also got a Grade III BAR in '06 and a Ruger RSI in .308. When I'm hunting with these it's rare to see anyone else with one, but I tend to stick with the cartridges that work. I've got a new custom Mauser being built now in .275 Rigby, it's really just a 7 x 57 (another old timer that works) but the British name seems a little more elegant.

I find that the 270 doesn't really have a place where it is best in big game hunting.For deer only the 25-06 is plenty of gun with flatter trajectory and less recoil and for moose and elk the 7mm mag is a better choice due to it's extra energy and heavier bullets.

TD, that's a good point about the bullet performance. There aren't as many varaibles to contend w/. I'll stay w/ my .280 as a light rifle though, I lke those long 160gr bullets!

Hello Frank, I'll e-mail you later but I will be in Whitehall on Fri. evening before the opener. Maybe we can meet Sat. evening for grub.

[ 10-12-2002, 04:42: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

The .270 Winchester is just one of those cartridges that just seem to do a lot of things well, some better and well some things like elephants well nope. Most places ammo can be had, and its loaded with good bullets. The 280 and the .30-06 are all pretty much the same and work just about as well as as the other. It then becomes a choice what rifle you like best. The 280 is more of a handloaders deal these days. I shoot a 7mm x 64 mm the european version. Its a handloaders deal here in the States. The .270 today is better than ever due to some really good bullets that can be had. As for the .270 WSM. I think it will be a winner, Since there are so few 270 cartridges. For the guy that travels and don't reload, and dose not like a whole lot of recoil, then the .30-06 would be the best choice. I use to shoot a 7mm Remington Mag quite a bit, I don't do so much anymore, a 270 is plenty and if more is needed then I just shoot a 338 Winchester. And if more that that is needed then thats what they make 416's for.

Along with the 30/06 the 270Win. is "THE CARTRIDGE" that brought the general public into the modern "TRUE" medium bore, high velocity era.
One can certainly not call deer and antelope small game and it is here where the 270 excells.
It is also very usefull on for elk hunting, in truth I now use a 7mag. with 160 partitions for elk, not because the 270 ever failed me but more because I bought into the current "use enough gun" line. If anyone can tell the difference between 10grs.more bullet weight and 150-200fps. in velocity it's beyond me. The arguement of 33cal/250gr. and nothing smaller for elk makes me laugh. People have bought into the idea that you can make sloppy shots with a 338 and still bring your elk down . In the real world the "gut and butt" shots with over 30cal. mags are lost just as fast as if it were done with the pipsqueak 270. For the most part 270 users are into shot placement not bullet weight and diameter for killing power. Each fall in the east and west the 270 gives a sterling account of it's self in the game fields.

A couple of more thoughts. First, I've had 3 338 and 3 300mags. I personally see no need for them in the lower 48 states. Remember the late Les Bowman, Wyn. guide and packer? He commented that he'd seen more elk wounded and lost from hunters who couldn't handle their magnums then from people shooting standard cals.
Now back to the 270. As I stated in the beginning, along with the 30/06 the 270 were the first 2 cartridges to bring the general public into modern times. I feel we owe it some loyality. How is the 280 such a better round? Is it the .007 larger dia., the 15grs. more bullet weight(how many people actually load 175s in the 280)? Rem. brought out the 280 to steel some of the market from the 270, which it really never has been able to do. How come they had to keep renaming and breathing new life into to it if it was so much better?
One last thing, the 280 was never chambered in the rifleman's rifle- was it. The 270 was.
Pete

PS-- Happyness is owning a standard weight and a feather weight pre64 M70 in 270Win.

In answer to the original question, "Why Not?" The .270 is a great shooting round. It can do just about everything here in the U.S.of A. Is it the only calibre I hunt with? No. But it is sure a good choice.

For me, there isn't much difference between .270, 280 Remington and the venerable 30-06. All three were developed from the same parent case and have similar performance. The 30-06 gets a very slight nod for using heavier bullets suitable for Elk. They are all excellent rounds.
I bought my .270 because the 280 Remington wasn't available in my rifle and the local Bi-Mart was out of ADL rifles in 30-06. I have never regretted that decision. The .270 has low recoil, is very easy to load for and is very accurate. In a pinch it can be a varmint rifle. As a last resort it will take Elk (with proper bullets and bullet placement). The .270 is a very good general purpose round. Just like its parent cartridge.

ZM

Pete, I'm not saying one is better than the other. Obviously a 2% increase in dia. & a 9% increase in bullet weight doesn't really matter. But, it is an increase w/o any negatives. The same really can't be said for the .30-06. Recoil starts to get annoying in a 7# rifle w/ the 06. I think if the .280 had have come out 1st the M70, then the .270 would have occupied the same place the .280 now does.
It's just junk food for thought. Like I said, campfire talk.

On paper the .280 looks like it would outperform the .270, but for some reason the .270's I've had
are easy to find a great load, and kill better than anything this side of the 7mm Rem mag.

Fred - I always felt exactly like you do and used to argue viciously with the "270 boys" about the merits of their guns. And to rub salt in my wounds, a lot of the guys I hunted with used this damn cartridge! ALL of them were very good shots and often made shots that just left my head spinning.

Finally, in my late college years I bought a .270 and played with it briefly. It was a tack driver and I quickly got rid of it because I think I was afraid I would fall in love with it.

A few years ago I decided I was too old to care what anyone thought of me anymore and I bought another 270. This one I have shot enough to fall in love with. It's deadly accurate, works superbly on anything I'll encounter in Texas or New Mexico, is a joy to shoot and reload for.

I guess what I'm saying is sometimes you just have to own something to appreciate it, i.e. give in to the force~!

The 270 didn't become one of the all time favorite rifle cartridges for nothing. Like ALL cartridges, there are things it does better than others and worse than others. But I promise you if you ever get one, you'll fall in love with it. Even an old crumudgeon like me did!

Fred,
You are completely right. The first one out took all the money. This is a good hot stove arguement, that's all.
If nothing else the 270 is a true classic and deserves some respect. I am a 270 fan. Started using it in 1965, with it I've killed muledeer, whitetail, blacktail, antelope, mt.goat, blackbear,pigs, and elk. I have never felt undergunned. Everything has been with the 130gr. bullets of various makes, even on elk it's enough gun-for me. I hunt with other cals. and enjoy them but keep comming back to the 270 because it dose the job. Right now I have a 35Whelen barrel, and a mauser put together. It won't be finished this fall so will be using it next fall. Still, I am not going to run out and sell my 270s even if the Whelen is the greatest thing since popcorn. I'am just a gun nut. Pete

fredj338,

I kind of know what you mean, I really like the 7mag. the 338 Win Mag and just got a 338 RUM and like fast heavy bullets. But when I don't know what to take or I need a reliable meat gun I grab my 270 Win. Rem 700, It killed my biggest Antelope, Record Mule Dear, Record Bood Black Bear, Record Book Leopard, Record Bood Common Duiker,(Not trying to be a jerk or record bood jerk it is always with me when I get serious) made some amazing shots on coyotes, rockchucks, prarie dogs, cats. Oh yea, and two Zebra, 4 Wildebeast and a dozen African animals between zebra and Impala. It will shoot to 350 yards without hesitation and kill guickly. I have one bullet rule with the 270 (and all my guns)use a premium bullet on anything bigger than a coyote. I stick to this rule and never look back. Good Luck and Good Hunting, "Z"

Even Jack O'Connor(quietly, and out of the public eye!!), sometimes admitted that the .280 Rem. "was probably better than the .270 Win." However, I used a .270 Win. extensively in Alaska in the mid-1960's, with 150-grain Nosler Partition bullets, and for some reason, it was the rifle I always seemed to be carrying when I came across game to shoot, even though I had a .45/70, a .308 Norma Magnum, and a .375 H&H also at that time. Since I had an opportunity to shoot, even though carrying just a .270, I took a lot of shots at Alaskan game with this cartridge. I did have to shoot one bear twice, but everything else, including bvrar, caribou and moose, were one-shot kills. As one of O'Connor's Indian guides once allegedly remarked during a hunting-camp debate on what guns were adequate in the far north, "Any gun good, shootum good!!"

I'm a big .270 fan. The reason for it's success is pretty simple...ample power, flat trajectory, great accuracy, and minimal recoil. Good bullets have only made it better and even mild factory loads carry 2000 fps out to over 400 yards ensuring bullet expansion will be good, even at long ranges. Factory ammo has always been good for the .270 and I may have been lucky, but have never seen a .270 that has not shot well with standard factory ammo. Maybe this is because every bullet, even the stuff Wal/K-mart carries is designed to work for the .270 Win where as .30/7mm cals have to work for a ton of other rounds.

Though I own a wonderfully handy Rem 700 Mt. Rifle in .280 (one of my fav guns/cals), I've never seen why some guys consider it to be superior to the .270. The rounds generate nearly identical velocities with the same bullet weights (I actually have a harder time getting the .280 to reach the same velocity as my .270s with the same bullet weight, but have no idea why) and there is not one shot on any game that I would take with the .280 that I would not take with the .270 and vice versa (another way to say 10 or 15 more grains of bullet at the same energy level and virtually same diameter doesn't mean much to me).

I guess the other guys who said "it just plain works" summed the .270 up best. Loaded with a good 130 grain bullet, sight your .270 3" high at 100, take a solid rest, and aim for the middle of the chest out to 325+ yards or top of the back out to 400 and chances are you'll become a fan as well.

Best Regards,

Lou

I built my 270 before there was a 280 Rem.In the many years I've used it I've never had to shoot an animal more than once.That includes many elk and five African animals.
I switched to the 270 from an 06 due to a neck injury that couldnt take the recoil from the 06 and it's heavier bullets.I never regreted the change,but I didnt sell the 06.
There is nothing wrong with the 280.It's a great cartridge,as is the 270 and the 06.No need to put a man down for using either of them.

Bravo five one

It just seems to me like the cartridges built on the old '06 case work pretty damn good for a lot of scenarios. The .25-06, .270, .280, and .30-06 are damn good at what they were made to do (well, the .30=06 was made to kill people, but you guys understand) and great for big game hunting at normal ranges. I hesitate to use the .25-06 on moose and elk, but others have and with great sucess, the .270, .280, and .30-06 great for moose/elk with a heavy, well-build bullet and stiff handloads dumped right in the boiler room. The .30-06 can do bears, but the .338-06 semi-wildcat and .35 Whelen, and now the 9.3x62mm are great for the big bruins and heavy plains game, again with big beefy bullets and proper shot placement. I'd rather pound a pissed off grizzly with a 250gr. .358 in the vitals than a 400gr. .416 up the poopchute anyday.

So I'm way off topic, but I think you get the point on the '06-based rounds. They're just freakin' great!

Its simple,even though the 7x57 was chambered in many rifles,america still didn't really like the 7mm caliber. The 7mm rem mag was the first highly successful 7mm round in the U.S. and this cartridge didn't occur until 1962. The .270 was loaded from the begining at near top velocity in 1925 and was an american caliber.The .280 was later loaded at anemic levels because of the M7400 rifle. In those days america was still america and nobody wanted to hear about metric bullshit. Today the .270 stays popular because of the number of rifles chabered for it,honest performance and ammo thats cheaper in some cases then you could reload it for.

I've been shooting a 270 since 1964 and have yet to put a second round into an animal with it, Deer, Elk and a few unfortunate Coyotes and Rabbits. Like what is stated in the above posts, it just works!
It's not the only Caliber I shoot but may very well be my favorite!
I just got a new 270WSM and have been very pleased with it also, but this Love Affair is just starting
MARSHMULE

Plain and Simple, it gets the job done without braking your shoulder everytime you shoot it.

Gentlemen,

I don't personally shoot a .270, but I know a whole lot of people who do. I find it very interesting (and somewhat amuzing) that Boddington had to do an article to "prove" that the .270 can be used on elk. All he had to do was ask any of the thousands of people in the west who use it every year.

I prefer my 7 Mag, but I bet 95% of the animals I shoot with it probably couldn't tell if they were hit with it or with a .270.

If you can shoot it well, and you like it, then use it.

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

the only 270 Win that I haven't rebarreled is the one I got from my brother. He's a southpaw, and I swapped him a leftie savage 110 in 7 Mag for it. There was some surface rust on the 270 (put away damp caribou hunting) Win Model 70. I was going to rebarrel this one too, but I shot it first. It shot so well, I couldn't bring myself to rebarrel it, so I refinished it instead. I still don't think of 270's as being particularly good at anything, but I won't argue with something that shoots that well. FWIW - Dan

You're probably right BR, but it just doesn't tickle my fancy. On the other hand, when I do take it hunting, I know it will hit right where it's pointed no matter what, and that's a confidence builder. Ah well, so many guns, so little time. - Dan

If I was only going to hunt deer I would take the 270 for the job. It shoots flat, doesn't kick, doesn't eat barrels, ammo is cheap, and has plenty of power.

The reason the .270 rose to prominence in the beginning was the introduction of slower powders which permitted very high relative velocities for that period. With those powders, the .270 could achieve 7mmRemMag back in the thirties, albeit, with a lighter bullet. However, as the second point mentioned, .277 bullets were developed for the .270 Win cartridge. These were "just" right for the .270.

Slower powders have done today for the 30-06 what they did for the .270 thirty years ago. However, bullet construction has improved the performance of .277 bullets. The 140gr partition is capable of killing just about anything one is liable to hunt with the exception of the elephant, rhino and hippo. The 140 loading will closely duplicate the balistic of the 7mmRemMag.

I have a M70 in .270, a classic O'Connor rifle, and it has killed everything I have pointed it at. I did not do my part on Hartebeste, and it was messy, but it hangs on my wall. I have no doubt that it is capable of killing any north american game or african plains game. Ku-dude

I think it is human nature to support what we own and like using and be a bit suspicous of what others tout. If your particular cartridge is close to a .270 and it works well for you, it is unlikely that you will shift to that cartridge or accept the accolades that go along with it. My 7 X 57's and my .280 do the job very nicely and the .270 doesn't fill any nich. I have never met a .270 owner who wasn't very happy with it. That has to be saying something. The same thing goes for the .280 also. BUT us 7 X 57 guys are the really smart ones, lol.

I love both rounds. I like shooting, I like hunting. But when I hear someone quote either Jack O. & Elmer K, it makes me ill. They were smart guys, that had strong opinions over these very very small differences. But these guys wasn't gods, they were just regular ole boys, that did alot of testing. You know one day while talking to this freind of mine who is a reporter for a paper, I discussed why his articles, he consentrates so much on this or that. I said, "in the real, world, it makes no difference. He said, "if you want to make it in this business, you got to have an angle. That makes you differnt than the other guys. Just business. I think alot of what Jack O. and Elmer K, did was just that. then you got these modern writers, that also have their angles, like John Barshness with his thing about small scopes and tradition and all that. Then there are other guys who consentrate on technology, speed, all things not traditional. Just an angle.

I like the .270 Win because it works for me. The .280 Rem is a good round and granted you can load a wider range of bullets in the 7mm/.284 caliber range which theoretically makes the .280 Rem a more versatile cartridge than the .270 Win. However if versatility was my goal in cartridge selection I’d skip the .280 Rem altogether and go with a .30-06 which has an even wider range of bullets available for reloading. I don’t want versatility. I use the .270 Win on deer and I use one bullet weight the 130 grain. With my handloads I get an average muzzle velocity of 3100 fps from my 22 inch barreled rifles and have seldom had one step out of its tracks after taking a hit to the chest. Those few deer that did manage to travel after being hit through the chest left good blood trails, or went down within sight. I’ve hunted and killed deer with the 7mm Rem Mag and had the same .270/like results. 7mm mags are generally heavier, louder, kick harder and most have longer barrels and hold one less shell in the magazine than a standard .270 bolt gun. Why bother with a heavier, louder, longer, harder kicking rifle 7mm mag for the same results? And why bother with the .280 Rem if you aren’t looking for versatility.

GSF,
I could have been clearer, but I did not mean to suggest that a 270 could shoot a bullet of equal weight at the same velocity and match its balistic curve. It will, however, shoot a 140gr bullet at a curve that matches the 7mmRM's 165gr bullet. My point was that with modern bullets, there are no north american animals that a 140gr 7mm bullet will not kill quite adequately. Ku-dude

As a very young squirt, I studied and studied the entire bibliography of the shooting world until I decided that the perfect rifle for me was a .270. When I had saved enough of my summer's wages and set off to the store to buy one, the only thing in stock in the particular model of rifle I wanted was a .264, so I bought it.

It served me marvelously. Through the years, I became a sort of collector of this particular model of rifle and came by a dozen or so of them, both larger and smaller than my original .264. Each caliber had its strong points. Then, 30 years after purchasing the .264 in lieu of a .270, I finally came across the .270 I was originally looking for in a pristine model contemporaneous with my original gun.

Since most of my hunting is open country whitetail/muley and hog hunting, I gave the .270 a try. I quickly found that it did everything within these applications as well or better than any other caliber I owned and it is now my "go to" gun for serious deer hunting.

I've never killed an elk with it, and won't since I have better choices in a rifle available to me, but for anything from carabou down, the .270 can be equaled, but not surpassed.

I own a .270 because my Grandfather used one to hunt sheep and goat in Alaska and I grew up listening to his stories. Mine is a Ruger Mk II with Timney trigger. When I moved to Alaska I used it to take my first moose with 150 gr Partition. It didn't even take a step. It works. I mostly hunt with a 300 Win Mag but am very confident with the 270. If you ask why I would have both those and a 7mm mag, and a 30.06 when they are so close in performance, my answer is, because I can.

Because Jack Oconnor made such good stories about hte .270.

I killed the only 5 bull elk I have shot at. No wounding, tracking, or chasing. just dead within 50 yards. 150 grain factory rounds.

Killed the only two black bears shot at. dead without moving a step. 150 grain factory.

Killed every deer hit with it. Out of two dozen bucks, only had one to track and that was my fault for shooting a bedded animal poorly.

Gave the rifle to my son, who has now added a javelina and black bear, both one shot kills.

The 270 is just a good hunting round.

Too bad its not rimmed, or I would shoot it in my Merkel break action rifles.

I always tell my kids, "if you want to be different, just be normal". I think you can apply this rule to the .270 Winchester. Until the techies discover a new plastic, teflon coated, kevlar reinforced chrome plated rifle barrel, the .270 will be the king of the medium calibers.

I have shot whitetails with a 30/06, .243, .270, 7mm-08, and a 6mm. For whatever reason, the .270 killed every animal I ever shot with it DRT (dead right there) when some of the others didn't. Not that any of the others performed poorly - all of them put the animals down within 50 yards of where they were hit (except the 6mm in one instance, which I attribute to using a too lightly constructed bullet). The .270 put everything I shot (one spike Elk and probably 17 or 18 whitetails) down in their tracks. Logic tells me that if I were to shoot a bunch more animals with a 30/06 or the same number with a .280, I would have the same results, but with the .270 I don't have to wonder, as I have seen it perform time and again with my own eyes. The fact is I don't even own a .270 right now. I traded my last one off in a fit of stupidity when i just had to have another rifle, but didn't have the cash to purchase it outright. But I have two brand new boxes of .270 bullets that I am keeping, because I know someday I will have another .270, and won't let this one get away from me.

John