Hi I'm thinking about a new rifle and a 270 is calling my name. I shot my cousins 270 that's all the experience I got. Maybe 2 or 3 shots. I've gotten alot of deer using various calibers but the 3030 took most of em and 1 cow elk. But that's what I'll be chasing is mule deer, elk, and pronghorn whenever I draw the tags over here in oregon. So tell me the pros and the cons of the 270 Winchester. I do reload and I'll probably end up getting a savage. And if you got any loads please share thanks, Chris.

The Accubond is my general game bullet. The bag is as follows:

1) 210 pound Fallow Deer before gutting: Shot with a 140 grain .277 Accubond from 270 Winchester at 80-100 yards. I hit him behind the shoulderblade in the lungs in the top lobes angling up. The bullet did not catch the spine or shoulder blade. The Fallow Dropped to the shot. Massive exit wound the size of a grapefruit. You could not get near him without being covered in blood.

2) Two euro boars smallish in the 100-115 pound range: The first was shot in the left ball joint. The left flank completely unzipped, and the bullet exited the throat. His brother stopped facing away at an angle. I shot him through the spine angling down. The bullet exited in the front right leg where the leg joins the neck.

4) 100 something pound doe:Shot with a 140 grain .277 Accubond from 270 Winchester at 115 yards. I shot her dead center between the eyes.

5) 100 pound doe Shot with a 140 grain .277 Accubond from 270 Winchester at 35 yards. The First shot was right in the center of the heart. The shot exited with a two of my fist sized exit wound. I shot her again as she was swaying through the center of the shoulderbaldes. This also exited with a small beachball exit wound.

5) Coyote: Shot with a 140 grain .277 Accubond from 270 Winchester at 12 yards maybe. I shot him between and on the inside of the left foreleg and neck. The on flank completely unzipped and the bullet exited the off side hip.

6) 210 pound Whitetail Buck: Shot with a 140 grain .277 Accubond from 270 Winchester at maybe 15 yards. The buck was walking adjacent to me but in a low. the bullet was just off the ball joint of the on leg. The exit wound was massive. I could stick my arms in it. Both legs where broken, but not actually hit.

Those are my pros with the 270 Winchester. I have no cons. I would take a slight quartering or board side shot on elk with combination.

The 270/.277 bullet is actually a 7mm.

The one con is the 270 Winchester Supergrade is too nice which is why I bought another in Stainless Steel and Carbon Fiber/Kevlar stock.

quote:

The 270/.277 bullet is actually a 7mm.

actually the 270 is .277 like you said. or 27 caliber
the 7mm is a .284 or 28 caliber..
don't mix up the 2

I load a lot of 270s for friends, but I like my 7mm-08

quote:

Originally posted by vines:

quote:

The 270/.277 bullet is actually a 7mm.

actually the 270 is .277 like you said. or 27 caliber
the 7mm is a .284 or 28 caliber..
don't mix up the 2

I load a lot of 270s for friends, but I like my 7mm-08

He is actually right.

0.277 inch is 7.035mm

0.277x25.4 = 7.0358.

Just wanting a 270 is enough.

There is not enough difference any more with the calibers close it to matter.

So wanting matters one then need.

Need went away when I brought my first 06.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by vines:

quote:

The 270/.277 bullet is actually a 7mm.

actually the 270 is .277 like you said. or 27 caliber
the 7mm is a .284 or 28 caliber..
don't mix up the 2

I load a lot of 270s for friends, but I like my 7mm-08

He is actually right.

0.277 inch is 7.035mm

0.277x25.4 = 7.0358.

The bullet of .277 inches used in the 270 Win/270 WBY, 270 WSM, 270 Nosler measures 7.0358 millimeters.

The grove diameter of the 270 Win is 7.0358.

The only measurement that is 6.8 mm concerning the 270 Win is the lands.

He is actually right.

0.277 inch is 7.035mm

0.277x25.4 = 7.0358.


The bullet of .277 inches used in the 270 Win/270 WBY, 270 WSM, 270 Nosler measures 7.0358 millimeters.[/quote]

im just saying, don't go but 7mm bullets and load them in your 270. that DONT work

You are most correct the .284 inch bullet is 7.214 mm.

it will do all things in the lower 48, and most things in alaska.

it's a great round, though sort of like a really good vanilla ice cream, it's vanilla.

though, in through, there's not a real bit of difference (with proper bullet selection) from the 243 to the 30-06

it's hard to pick a bad one in that mix

I have a stable of 270's. However, I also own the gamut of nearly all of the other standard calibers below and above it(and many of each), from 223 through 375. I've killed elk, antelope, mule and white tail deer, and many of the African antelopes with the 270. My favorite bullets have been Federal's Trophy Bonded and of course, the Accubonds, in 140 grain. Ask Saeed about the use of the 270 in Africa.

Hi kennedy:

Pros: Zillions

Cons: None. Zip, zero, nilch. Nada.

Buying a .270 Win is a no-brainer.

Hum, well Lori and I have killed dozens of antelope with 270's, dozens of deer, a few elk. Took it on my first Africa trip, worked perfectly on deer and elk sized game.

With good shot placement all were DRT or only went a few dozen yards at worst.

We hunt for meat mostly each year and generally have taken a few as 6 and as many as 19 animals in any given year, again most with a 270 or 7x57, sort of the original 270 My hunting buddies use 270's, or it's clone, 7mm08 (before you same they're not the same for practical purposes look at a ballistics chart...) All told hundreds and hundreds of deer and elk sized game out to 550 yds with no problems if shot placement is good.

Oh and the low recoil and reasonable ammo costs, both factory and reloads mean that you can practice to your hearts content with no sore shoulder and without developing a flinch which means you're going to be a way better shot because of the practice! Therefore good shot placement and so a vicious circle of competency and confidence.

I'm so proud of my AR compadres! I saw the topic of Kennedy's posting and dreaded that it was going to generate a round of nonsensical arguing between the 270 guys and the 30-06 guys. Instead, there are a number of thoughtful postings and even some educational opportunity for me to learn something new --- that the 270 is a .277. Cheers

I have never had much interest in the 270 Winchester. But, I will not even attempt to argue with success. I have seen the results of its success, several times. Of course, the placement, the bullet, and the circumstances are all the major players in the success of any shot with any cartridge.

With similar bullet types and velocities, I don’t think there can be much difference between it and the 7mm cartridges. I will give acknowledgement to the faster twist barrels and higher B.C. bullets advantages of some 7mm’s. But, my distances that is really no practical gain.

The 270 Winchester is an impressive performer.




———————————————————————————————————-

quote:

Originally posted by kennedy:
Hi I'm thinking about a new rifle and a 270 is calling my name. I shot my cousins 270 that's all the experience I got. Maybe 2 or 3 shots. I've gotten alot of deer using various calibers but the 3030 took most of em and 1 cow elk. But that's what I'll be chasing is mule deer, elk, and pronghorn whenever I draw the tags over here in oregon. So tell me the pros and the cons of the 270 Winchester. I do reload and I'll probably end up getting a savage. And if you got any loads please share thanks, Chris.

I got my first 270 in the mid 80s and before long it became my favorite big game hunting cartridge. Over those years I have owned and reloaded for about 1/2 dozen different rifles, including Rugers, Remingtons, Brownings and Winchesters. All of them have performed. I have taken pronghorn antelope, mule deer, elk and big horn sheep with the 270 and always been pleased with the results. The 270 is a reloaders dream and lately I have settled on IMR-4831 for all my loads using 130, 140 and 150 grain bullets. All of my rifles have consistently grouped around 1" at 100 yards, and with a 3" high zero at 100 yards are essentially dead on at 300 yards. For western (read Colorado) hunting it doesn't get any better than that. Try it, you'll like it!

I wish someone loaded good cheap factory match ammo for the 270.

Mike

As I stated above, I never had much interest in the 270 Winchester. But, it is an impressive performer.

I neglected to add that I bought a used M70 Classic stainless 270 Winchester a few months ago. And a M70 Classic stainless in 270 WSM. I am currently having a stock bedded to the WSM. The 270 Winchester, I still have to sort out the stock I want.

Though having not shot either of these particular rifles. Ballistically I would be as happy with one as the other. Both are destined for 130 grain’ish tipped copper type bullets.
I am not sure how much if at all they will be hunted with. I normally hunt only moose and usually use a 338, 375, or 416, because I like larger medium bores.
Many moose are killed each year with a 270 Winchester. It still seems to be a very popular round up here. Judging by the amount of factory loads available in the stores that I frequent, very popular. I knew one man that had many rifles, but the 270 Winchester was his moose gun for decades.

Since you asked; the 270 had zero reason to exist; there were many, far better cartridges available from Europe, in the 7mm caliber, but since everything German was banned after WW1, Americans would not buy a metric caliber.
Too small for big stuff, and too big for small stuff.
I have owned at least 20 of them; never fired one; they are good only for the actions and I use the barrels for pry bars.
Get a 7mm of any ilk and you will have a better, more versatile caliber.
I have no use for a 270.
No more hate mail; you asked.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Since you asked; the 270 had zero reason to exist; there were many, far better cartridges available from Europe, in the 7mm caliber, but since everything German was banned after WW1, Americans would not buy a metric caliber.
Too small for big stuff, and too big for small stuff.
I have owned at least 20 of them; never fired one; they are good only for the actions and I use the barrels for pry bars.
Get a 7mm of any ilk and you will have a better, more versatile caliber.
I have no use for a 270.
No more hate mail; you asked.

Agree! NEVER underestimate the importance of .007 of an inch in diameter when considering the effectiveness of a bullet!

quote:

Agree! NEVER underestimate the importance of .007 of an inch in diameter when considering the effectiveness of a bullet!

In truth the actually that .007 is important because there are far more bullets available in .284" than in .277" should that be important. The .270 WCF is a great vehicle for the 130 grain to 150 grain bullets that are pretty much in 2020 the only weights...130 grain, 140 grain and 150 grain...in factory ammunition or, indeed, in factory bullets. Which is to be regretted as 7x64 and .280 Remington are the better mousetrap.

There's no traditional cup and core 160 grain .277" bullet and no 170 grain traditional cup and core bullet either. But in truth does it matter? Whilst I'd go as far as saying that the .280 Remington is what the .270 WCF should have been the fact is that for most hunting purposes the .270 WCF does the job with the bullet weights it comes in. But if you are happy to be limited to that 150 grain ceiling the .270 WCF will do.

The .277 has 130,129,140,150,160 (Accubond) grain bullets for standard twist.

Woodleigh offers 180 grain bullets.

Hornady offers a 145 grain eld/eldx bullet.

That is just as many bullet weights that you see for the 30 cal and 6.5s.

The 6.5 Creedmore, that was an unnecessary cartridge. The 6.5 Swede and 6.5 Remington did the exact same thing 140 grain billets at 2800 FPS.

I've killed medium game on 3 continents with my .270 Win. The vast majority were killed with 130 gr. Remington Green Box Corelokts. Though I have handloaded for my .270 since I was 14 years old (I'm 58 now). Bar none my favorite .270 load is a Nosler Solid Base 130 gr (now discontinued--but I have half a thou saved up) and a max charge of H4831. In recent years I've gotten even better results with R22. Don't let anyone tell you its too small or too big... The .270 WInchester is consistently a top 5 elk cartridge in the United States by sales. The difference between a 130 gr .270 at 3150 and a 7mm Rem Mag 140 gr or a .264 Win Mag 140 gr. is so small in terms of energy, trajectory and velocity its not really worth the bandwidth to discuss...don't take my word for it look it up. Of course the 7mm Rem Mag will outshine it with 175gr loads...but there's no stink on a 150 gr. 270 bullet for elk. I've probably shot a tractor trailer load of whitetails with one and there are no cartridges I have used that will do better. Of course its a lighter recoiling rifle than an -06 and that matters over time and when your finger is on the trigger in spite of what people will claim.
I started off shooting highpower hunting rifles with a .270 Winchester and for nearly 15 years its the only rifle I used to kill deer. Like many teenagers in the 60s and 70s I grew up reading Jack O'Connor and that mystique is deep in my soul. There are a ton of great options out there...but there's a lot to be said for a .270 WInchester and nothing that can be said against it unless you believe the gun rag blarney of someone like Elmer Kieth. There are VERY few cartridges that will give you a max point blank range of 310-315 yards like a .270 will and I've used that to my advantage in the field a fair number of times...hold dead on out the your MPBR and you'll make meat if you don't jerk the trigger too much!

Besides...7mm is a damn communist metric round and we all know the metric system never took here in the states...

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The .277 has 130,129,140,150,160 (Accubond) grain bullets for standard twist.

Woodleigh offers 180 grain bullets.

Hornady offers a 145 grain eld/eldx bullet.

That is just as many bullet weights that you see for the 30 cal and 6.5s.

The 6.5 Creedmore, that was an unnecessary cartridge. The 6.5 Swede and 6.5 Remington did the exact same thing 140 grain billets at 2800 FPS.

Oh there's more than that. You can buy .277 bullets in 90, 100, 110, and 115 grains in addition to the ones you listed... Its a dandy varmint load with 90 grain bullets

quote:

Originally posted by KY Nimrod:
[ . . . ]
I started off shooting highpower hunting rifles with a .270 Winchester and for nearly 15 years its the only rifle I used to kill deer. Like many teenagers in the 60s and 70s I grew up reading Jack O'Connor and that mystique is deep in my soul. [ . . . ]

Besides...7mm is a damn communist metric round and we all know the metric system never took here in the states...

Amen, bro! I cut many, many lawns to pay for a M70 Featherweight in .270 when I was 13(?), I still have it and it still shoots 1.25 MOA or better.

Jack O'Connor (sadly, no relation) had a huge influence on this citizen! That rifle and the .270 take me back to very happy times. To me the combination of rife and caliber is pure magic.

And why do we shoot/hunt/compete/reload/etc. if not for the sheer magic of it all?

quote:

Originally posted by KY Nimrod:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The .277 has 130,129,140,150,160 (Accubond) grain bullets for standard twist.

Woodleigh offers 180 grain bullets.

Hornady offers a 145 grain eld/eldx bullet.

That is just as many bullet weights that you see for the 30 cal and 6.5s.

The 6.5 Creedmore, that was an unnecessary cartridge. The 6.5 Swede and 6.5 Remington did the exact same thing 140 grain billets at 2800 FPS.

Oh there's more than that. You can buy .277 bullets in 90, 100, 110, and 115 grains in addition to the ones you listed... Its a dandy varmint load with 90 grain bullets

I would bet a dollar against a doughnut that most folks shooting a 7x64 (Good luck finding brass for that at the local gun store), 7mm Rem, 7x57, 7mm/08 shoot a 140 grain bullet.

How is the .284 with 140 grain bullet a superior mouse trap to a .277 grain bullet with 140 grain bullet at 2950-3000 FPS per second.

I love the .277/7.0358mm 140 grain Accubond. See my first post.

Just off the top of my head the common bullet weights for 7mm

139, 140, 160, 150, 162, 175.

Burger makes a 185 for non standard twist, but it is not really a hunting bullet.

That is 1 less than I came up with for the 270.

6.5 Creedmore the most common weights are 120, 123, 125, 130, 140, and 142

That is just six bullet weights with most, common, factory loads focusing on just two weights 120 and 140 weights.

The venerable.270 Win is a true classic and great performer. With cartridges like the
.270 Win, 30-06, .375 H&H, 6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62, etc., the world would not be lacking in performance rifle cartridges had been created after 1925. Although some great ones have come along since, most are completely superfluous. Especially, the WSSM, WSM, Remington Ultra mags, the Weatherby line and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would bet a dollar against a doughnut that most folks shooting a 7x64 (Good luck finding brass for that at the local gun store), 7mm Rem, 7x57, 7mm/08 shoot a 140 grain bullet.

likely - or 139/138 -- in my 7x64, its 162

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

How is the .284 with 140 grain bullet a superior mouse trap to a .277 grain bullet with 140 grain bullet at 2950-3000 FPS per second.

as the 7x64 predates the 270, that question, who's time has passed, is properly reversed

i am a HUGE 7x64 fan - and the ONLY con i can see for the 270 is that it's not a 7x64 ... which, honestly, is like arguing when M&M color tastes better

The 30-06, and all cartridges based on it for .277 and .284 bullets, are kissing cousins.

For hunting, every single one will do the job of the other.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is just splitting hairs!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would bet a dollar against a doughnut that most folks shooting a 7x64 (Good luck finding brass for that at the local gun store), 7mm Rem, 7x57, 7mm/08 shoot a 140 grain bullet.

likely - or 139/138 -- in my 7x64, its 162

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

How is the .284 with 140 grain bullet a superior mouse trap to a .277 grain bullet with 140 grain bullet at 2950-3000 FPS per second.

as the 7x64 predates the 270, that question, who's time has passed, is properly reversed

i am a HUGE 7x64 fan - and the ONLY con i can see for the 270 is that it's not a 7x64 ... which, honestly, is like arguing when M&M color tastes better

I have no issue with the 7x64. I recognize its utility and greatness. I would like to have a small double or single shot in 7x64R or 7x64 rimless.

My only minor issue is citing it as a reason or any .284 cartridge against the 270 Win.

I love my 7mm STW and use 160 grain Accubonds with her.

I own more centerfire hunting rifles than I'll ever be able to shoot. But when I get really serious about hunting deer I pick up my Sako .270. I wouldn't hesitate to hunt smaller or larger game with it, but it is only because I have other rifles that "need to be shot" that I use some other caliber for elk, etc.

I used my host's .270 in Africa June of 2019 to take a variety of tough game including kudu and wildebeest. And my hunting companion took three zebras with four shots from the .270 he was using. The low-price promo 140 grain "Hornady Whitetail" ammunition worked splendidly.

Two-Seventy, Two-Eight, Thirty-Ought-6, as many have said, one will do what the other will. If you want to split hairs then the .270 has a slight advantage for lighter game at longer distances like pronghorn, and the .30-06 has a slight advantage for larger game like elk at closer distances. But I wouldn't hesitate to take an elk with a .270 at 50 yards any more than I'd hesitate to take a pronghorn at 300 yards with a .30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by B L O'Connor:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Since you asked; the 270 had zero reason to exist; there were many, far better cartridges available from Europe, in the 7mm caliber, but since everything German was banned after WW1, Americans would not buy a metric caliber.
Too small for big stuff, and too big for small stuff.
I have owned at least 20 of them; never fired one; they are good only for the actions and I use the barrels for pry bars.
Get a 7mm of any ilk and you will have a better, more versatile caliber.
I have no use for a 270.
No more hate mail; you asked.

Agree! NEVER underestimate the importance of .007 of an inch in diameter when considering the effectiveness of a bullet!

Oh God, I'm dying...thanks for this! I needed a chuckle this morning.

The '06, the .280, the .270, the 7 Mauser...and any number of similar cartridges are wonderful performers.

While I'm currently smitten with the 7x57, I regularly witness the .270 in capable hands. The She-Wolf (my long suffering bride and who is "Hell and Jesus" with a rifle) took her battered old .270 to Zambia in 2015 and took six animals with six shots...from Kafue Lechwe at 250 yards to Lichtenstein's hartebeest to puku, reedbuck and impala. She's hammered red stag in Argentina, elk and pronghorn in New Mexico, and whitetail, turkeys and hogs right here at home.

When I hear her .270 go off, I reach for my knife because I know I've got work to do.

Mark

There are no cons when it comes to the .270 that I know of and would distrust anyone who stated otherwise..even though I prefer a 30-06 as it has more bullet weitht...I shot a lot of game with both, and leaned towards the 06 for no particular reason..

quote:

The 30-06, and all cartridges based on it for .277 and .284 bullets, are kissing cousins.

For hunting, every single one will do the job of the other.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is just splitting hairs!

+1

The .270 gave Jack O'Connor something to write about that the others weren't. Even he would tell you it really didn't do a thing the 30-06 wouldn't.

The 270 is a great caliber period. Good elk medicine with 150g Partitions, I use them for deer and black bear as well. Never lost an animal or had them go more than 30 yards. Doesn't kick much, but hits hard as hell down range. Think you'll like it.

quote:

When I hear her .270 go off, I reach for my knife because I know I've got work to do.

Invariably, cartridge debates, analyses, and critiques omit the single most crucial component: process of death. All animals require oxygenated blood supplies to their brains. Decommission the apparatus that supplies any animal’s topside oxygenated blood supply, and it will die. That is an unalterable biological fact. In fact, lack of brain activity is the legal definition of death.

Long before centerfire cartridges debuted, big game succumbed to muskets, arrows, and spears.

The biological fact is it doesn’t matter what destroys any big game animal’s oxygenated blood pumping apparatus. All that matters is it’s destroyed. Hence, a bullet fired from a .270 Win will kill North America’s largest game animal if it decommissions its heart and/or lungs. A .375 H&H Magnum won’t kill it any deader.

When we consider laws of biology, cartridges become personal preferences. North American big game hunting reality is no other cartridge was necessary after the US Army came out with the ’06. However, without other cartridges, campfires would have been boring. And cartridge development and experimentation resulted in many direct and ancillary benefits, wider array of smokeless powder coming to mind.

The ’06 was America's big game cartridge for many decades. It’s as great now as it was when it was introduced. When I was a teenager and wanted my first big game rifle, I was well advised by knowledgeable hunters that I should buy a .270 Win because the ’06 was too much gun for a young hunter. If one’s source were limited to gun magazines, one would conclude that the ’06 should be limited to small game because it’s wholly ineffective on big game. A magnum is required for big game. I have no clue how our hunting forefathers managed without that magnum wisdom.

I will concede that some cartridges offer the advantage of extending shooting distances. The obvious question is when does big game shooting replace big game hunting. Hunting implies skills necessary to know, stalk, and humanely kill big game. The best way to humanely kill big game is to immediately terminate its topside oxygenated blood supply. Put a bullet from your rifle into a big game animal’s oxygenated blood pumping apparatus, affix your tag, and get ready for hard work.

I’m good with any suitable cartridge a big game hunter prefers for the game he’s hunting. However, my synapses will misfire when a hunter tells me that a .300 Win Mag will kill big game deader than an ’06.

I’m sure Eskimos haven’t switched from the ’06 for use on polar bear. I’m sure their Canadian brethren still use the .303 British for polar bear.

There is no doubt in my mind that the .270 Win firing bullets appropriate for game hunted will kill the largest North American deer species including Yukon moose just as dead as any magnum. It’s all about what a bullet destroys, not cartridges launching bullets.

BTW, I do recognize the difference between hunting big game and stopping a charging bear. I would prefer a Model 1895 firing huge, suitably constructed, and max loaded .45/70 Gov't cartridges for stopping any charging bear.

It's astonishing that the .45/70 Gov't was created over a 150 years ago, and it remains one of our most powerful big game cartridges. On the flip side, a max loaded .45/70 cartridge fired from an 1895 produces painfully punishing recoil.

I'm sure a 150 grain Partition fired from a .270 Win would break any charging bear's shoulders. But I'd much prefer the destructive power of the .45/70 Gov't.

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
...lots of words...

Mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic failure leads to death

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
It's astonishing that the .45/70 Gov't was created over a 150 years ago, and it remains one of our most powerful big game cartridges.

yeah, NOT even CLOSE .. a super max loaded ruger #1 in 45/70 isn't even CLOSE to a "most powerful" ...

recoil from a 45/70? never heard of her

Only Enfield gets what I am saying; of course guys and girls make the 270 work; that does not change the facts; in 1920 or so, when the 270 was invented, there were already far better cartridges out there. Just not here in the US, so someone picked the 270 diameter, for NO valid reason.
Fact is that the 7mm would have been a better choice.
Too late now of course, too many guys have learned to live with it. But if it had not been developed I guarantee that no one would miss it.