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.


+ 1 ill still take my 7MM-08 over a 270. allready have

I wonder how that 180-grain Woodleigh performs in the .270. Their manual shows it at about 2450. I have long been fascinated by heavy-for-caliber ballistics, but don't believe I have ever heard a field report on how this particular slug behaves on game.

I have ever been a fan of heavier fir caliber bullets.

All my hunting several 270 caliber rifles have been with bullets of 130, 140, and 150 grain.

Mostly 130.

Never had any problems killing anything, up to eland.

The 1;10 twist works for bullets up to 160 grains. The 180sneed a faster twist. I have no need for bullets heavier than 140-150.

I get what DPCD. I respectfully disagree with his logic. By that logic we do not need the 260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, 7mm/08, 35 Whelen, 338/06, 338WM, maybe 30/06, I set whatever cartridge you want I can find an at the time the American cartridge was introduced a Euro counterpart.

I like 7mms, I just like them on cases that can drive heavier bullets than 140 most people are using.

270 Win is sized just fine for anything you want to fight with any 7mm upto at least 7 Rem Mag. The bullet diameter, bullet weight, ballistics (range, energy, SD, whatever) recoil compare just fine.

I was raised and actively hated the 270 Win. I bought one for my wife bc she need a rifle, it was a IS Model 70 Supergrade stocked nicer than an catalog picture, made in the USA.

The rifle is Superbly accurate. I killed a buck with her 7mm/08 loaded below factory ballistics. That got me thinking. I proceeded to blessed with the game taken in my first post.

I did not take the 270 Win after Red Stag. The Agent kindly thought a step up was more appropriate. I think the 270 Win would have been just fine. I took the 7mm STW with 160 grain bullets. The STW really numbs them. I used the 35 Whelen for my cow elk simply because I needed to take her hunting, and the 35 Whelen in a traditional elk cartridge.

I still lean to the larger calibers, and cartridges. I have used at least a 35 caliber for everything larger than a deer. However, that does not mean the 270/30/06 cartridges are not adequate and killers like I once thought.

Therefore, is the 270 Win has not been my first choice for elk or 300 plus pound animals. However, neither is the 30/06. Yet, both will do more than work. The .284 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS is no better for the big stuff than a .277 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS.

All I ask is please, do not call the .277 caliber cartridges 6.8mm. That is just wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
I wonder how that 180-grain Woodleigh performs in the .270. Their manual shows it at about 2450. I have long been fascinated by heavy-for-caliber ballistics, but don't believe I have ever heard a field report on how this particular slug behaves on game.

Bill,

As you probaly know Woodleigh makes very heavy for calibre bullets in losts of bore sizes. 240 in 30, 350 in 375, 450 in 416 and 55 in 458.

Plenty in Australia have tried them including the 180 in 270. However, most seem to go back to normal bullet weights. My guess is that very few people will shoot more than just a few very big animals and a few shots means nothing. You only need to look at the African forum and one bloke drops a buffalo with one shot using a 375 on the buffalo and another bloke almost wears out the barrel on his 458 Lott. Of course shoot 5o buffalo then the 458 Lott would/might show up different.

So in short if someone loads up 180 grain Woodleigh in the 270 and shoots a couple of buffalo or camel the performance might not have been as good as his last couple of shots with 130-150 grain bullets.

From what I have seen the blokes who shoot stuff like buffalo and scrub bulls in real big numbers, none use the very heavy bullets for calibre. In fact in the 375 the Woodleigh 270 grain PP seems a common choice and of course the same load is great for anything that moves.

quote:

Originally posted by EMP3:
Hi kennedy:

Pros: Zillions

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

Buying a .270 Win is a no-brainer.

While 270 is a snoozer to me, I have to totally agree with EMP3. I’m a 7mm guy, and think the classic Euro 6.5mm’s are cool, but the 270 does everything they can do, and until wallmart quits selling guns and ammo (which might be sooner than you think), you’ll never have trouble finding it on a store shelf.

Mike, you are on the right track. I don't know what attracts me to heavy for caliber, but back when I had Corbin swaging presses and dies 15-20 years ago, I enjoyed making 225s for the .303 Brit, and 240s for the 8X57. Not super heavy, but they loafed along with very nice accuracy. You do get into twist rate issues if you go too far. Guess there isn't much point thanks to all the outstanding lighter-weight monometals out there.

Good Morning vines,

With utmost respect, kennedy, who initiated this thread, was definitive about soliciting info about the .270 Win and only the .270 Win. His query did not include other calibers.

While I do concur with your assessment that on paper, .284 caliber bullets have theoretical advantage vis-a-vis .277 caliber bullets, it's academic when theory meets reality of big game hunting. But that's not the topic under review. The virtues of the .270 Win and possible lack thereof is the only topic.

My opinion is the .270 Win will kill big game just as dead as any other cartridge as long as bullets destroy life sustaining mechanisms, most especially oxygenated blood pumping equipment.

Technically, if we want to split hairs the .277 caliber projectiles weighing 140-160 is better in terms of BCs and SD than the same 140-160 grain bullets of .284 caliber launched from the standard velocity cartridges most folks shoot out of the 7mmx57,7mm/08,280 Rem, and 7x64. This assumes same weight projectiles of design and construction being compared.

I think this is really a distinction without a difference.

I have a friend who was a Deer Culler in New Zealand for several years. He has shot more deer and stag than I will in my lifetime for certain. He used a number of rifles and calibers to do this work from the .303 to the .308, 7 MM, etc. The .270 in a ZKK was his absolute favorite rifle for this work. I have had no bad experience with it either, but I like a number of different chambers for deer size game. I have limited experience on larger stuff such as Elk. I bow to his extensive experience and concede that the .270 is certainly adequate. Personally, I like the '06 a littel better.

It's funnny how you get attracted to different bore sizes and simply just have good luck with them. I have had more rifles/rebarrels in 270 and 375 bores than any other. My email mike270375 says it all. 270 Win. 270 Wby 270/308 Norma and 375 H&H, 375 Imp and of course 378s.

With 7mm and 338 I have just been unlucky. Almost like God was against me having a thing with the 7mm and 338. Had more 338s than 7mm. 338s, 340s and 338/378s. For some reason I have never been attracted to 7mm and 338 but havimg been a real keen gun nut had to give them a good try.

I do think you have better luck with what attracts you whether it be calibres or actions.

If you really like and are attracted to the 7mm bore size then you will do better with the 280 and 7mm Rem than the 270 Win and 270 Wby.

These 7mm vs .270 debates always crack me up. It always starts off the same way “there is no need for the .270 since the creation of the 7mm. In fact, if you don’t like the first one we created, there are over 20 options to choose from since quite frankly, the first few sucked”. Ha!

270 vs. the 7 mag; 270 vs the 30-06; have been overplayed by the magazines for over 50 years, its probably good stuff for newbies, and children just reaching the sport of hunting and shooting I suppose...The early gun scribes mad their fame on those two subjects.

If Remington had released the 280 Remington in their model 700 I think they would have really put a dent in the popularity of the 270Win.

One of the above posters said it accurately. The 270Win is like vanilla ice cream. It doesn't excite many people but it happens to be a great cartridge.
For many years I scoffed at them because everyone and their brother had one. I've watched lots of Mule and Whitetail deer and a few Elk fall to the 270 Winchester.

I finally broke down and bought one last year and am hoping to use it on a Mule deer or Antelope hunt next season. If I draw a tag the 270Win will certainly go on the hunt.

Dropped a coyote with my .270 Winchester this afternoon, 130gr made quick work of him.

quote:

Originally posted by Palladin8:


If Remington had released the 280 Remington in their model 700 I think they would have really put a dent in the popularity of the 270Win.

7mm WSM did nothing to the 270 WSM.

I was born & lived in India until I was 35.

I started reading American gun magazines around 1974, when I was 18. I had a bit of money saved (Indian Rupees) and bought a few monthly magazines and the Annual of Guns & Ammo. That was a HUGE spend for a college kid in India at that time.

This debate about the 270 Win has been raging for decades before and since my reading those articles.

Before 1974, I had read plenty of old African and Indian Hunting books. I had come across all kinds of calibers from Muzzle loaders & 4 Bore to BP express doubles, Nitro Express doubles and the great 275 Rigby. My father had owned a 10.75X68 FN which I remember from as early as 4 years old.

I had the opportunity to handle a few Mannlicher Schoenauer rifles in the 1970s - 6.5X54MS & 9.5X57MS. I even handled a 476 Wesley Richards and a 280 WR double rifles - a pair made for the Maharaja & Maharani of Cooch Bihar in 1963. I was the allowed to use the 280 WR double on a driven pig hunt but never got to fire a shot.

Fast forward to the 1990s and I am in NZ and able to buy my own rifles

My first two centre fire rifles were a Tikka 222 Rem and a Rem 243 Win. The next two were 6.5X55 - Sako & Winchester Sporter. I loves that caliber & the history, nostalgia, and learning reloading & facing the challenge of developing new loads in modern rifles.

I myself have never had a passion for the 270 Win. I owned 2 very briefly. A beaten up Schultz & Larsen with a bulged muzzle that I got for a bargain and traded a few weeks later for a tidy Rem 600 carbine in 308 Win - A HUGE deal IMHO.

The other was a Sako AV Hunter 270 Win with a 4X Burris scope. I took the scope off and sold the rifle to another gun shop for $100 profit the same afternoon! I owned that rifle for less than 4 hours!

I even bought a 7X64 Brenneke in a FN action with Claw mounted Euro scope and played with it for a while.

I then went to a 358 Win for a while before I got an old Sako L61R and rebarrelled it to 280AI and hunted a lot with it.

I now own 2 Mannlicher Schoenauers in ... YES ... 6.5X54MS & 9.5X57MS!

I also have a 7mm08 and a 9.3X62 Simson that is over 108 years old.

No 270 Win. Never owned a 30'06 either.

I can only imagine how successful a 6.5 /06 with a decent twist barrel would have become if the yanks have had gone down that path. .277 as opposed to .264 with a twist that would stabilise up to 170 gn projectiles.
Malcolm

As a 270 Winchester owner, not a user yet, my choice of bullets are the 130’ish - 140’ish grain tipped monolithic and/or solid shank. I think these should offer excellent performance 300 yards and under.
If I need heavier than a 140 grain in a 270 or 150 grain in a 7mm with those types of bullets, I am moving up to at least a moderately fast 8mm and a 200 grain monolithic.

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.

I always find myself agreeing with your thinking. What's the con of a .270........it isn't a 30-06. If it is not at least .308 diameter, I am not interested.

I laugh ever time I see this title. There are no Cons... silly boys.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I was born & lived in India until I was 35.

I started reading American gun magazines around 1974, when I was 18. I had a bit of money saved (Indian Rupees) and bought a few monthly magazines and the Annual of Guns & Ammo. That was a HUGE spend for a college kid in India at that time.

This debate about the 270 Win has been raging for decades before and since my reading those articles.

Before 1974, I had read plenty of old African and Indian Hunting books. I had come across all kinds of calibers from Muzzle loaders & 4 Bore to BP express doubles, Nitro Express doubles and the great 275 Rigby. My father had owned a 10.75X68 FN which I remember from as early as 4 years old.

I had the opportunity to handle a few Mannlicher Schoenauer rifles in the 1970s - 6.5X54MS & 9.5X57MS. I even handled a 476 Wesley Richards and a 280 WR double rifles - a pair made for the Maharaja & Maharani of Cooch Bihar in 1963. I was the allowed to use the 280 WR double on a driven pig hunt but never got to fire a shot.

Fast forward to the 1990s and I am in NZ and able to buy my own rifles

My first two centre fire rifles were a Tikka 222 Rem and a Rem 243 Win. The next two were 6.5X55 - Sako & Winchester Sporter. I loves that caliber & the history, nostalgia, and learning reloading & facing the challenge of developing new loads in modern rifles.

I myself have never had a passion for the 270 Win. I owned 2 very briefly. A beaten up Schultz & Larsen with a bulged muzzle that I got for a bargain and traded a few weeks later for a tidy Rem 600 carbine in 308 Win - A HUGE deal IMHO.

The other was a Sako AV Hunter 270 Win with a 4X Burris scope. I took the scope off and sold the rifle to another gun shop for $100 profit the same afternoon! I owned that rifle for less than 4 hours!

I even bought a 7X64 Brenneke in a FN action with Claw mounted Euro scope and played with it for a while.

I then went to a 358 Win for a while before I got an old Sako L61R and rebarrelled it to 280AI and hunted a lot with it.

I now own 2 Mannlicher Schoenauers in ... YES ... 6.5X54MS & 9.5X57MS!

I also have a 7mm08 and a 9.3X62 Simson that is over 108 years old.

No 270 Win. Never owned a 30'06 either.

Have you considered how simplified your life would have been if you had begun with a .270 Win or an '06?

I read the original 270 Win articles written back in the 1920's (though much later!) and all of the velocity claims are highly optimistic. And those claims have been overly optimistic in the press, and I consider them deliberately deceptive to promote sales. The only times I have achieved the claimed 3000 fps with 130's is by ruining cases through case head expansion, leaking , blown, and pierced primers. I cannot push a 150 grain bullet as fast in the 270 Win as I can with a 308 Win or 30-06.
While there have been libraries of marketing published on the topic. I really doubt any animal, at 300 yards, can tell the difference between a 30 caliber bullet and a 277 bullet. I don't believe that kinetic energy kills animals. I believe the lethality of a cartridge is based on the size of the through hole it puts in game, and no other factor. It is up to your skill level to plant that bullet in a lethal zone instead of hitting an animal in the haunches. Velocity will flatten out the trajectory, but those who claim 500, 600, 700, 800 yard shooting need to demonstrate that their bullet will expand at that distance, and is not keyholing before it gets there. Which is something that you cannot calculate at your computer screen. You have to shoot the thing at distance, with the load you are using, to find this out.

In so far as long range claims, I think long range shooting is foolish and unethical. If you have not tested your ammunition at distance, lets say 500, 600, 700, 800 yards, and know the bullet drop, know the expansion of the bullet at that range, and whether you can keep all shots within a pie pan at distance. In spite of the current sales claims of 2000 yard shots, you should not be making Hail Mary's at living creatures. I do not believe in "book" value elevations at distance. While book may get you on a 8 X 8 foot target at 600 yards, it won't necessarily get you in the black. You have to sight the rifle in and use only that ammunition you established your long range zero, and even then, hitting center is not a gimme.

We live in a consumption based society. Instead of promoting shooting skills, what you read promotes consumption of goods. You are lead to believe that you can compensate for lack of shooting skills through the purchase of expensive equipment. This belief system is fostered ever day and every week in some shooting periodical, and it is patently false. The writers, are shills, whom you would not be reading, if they were not supporting the interests of the shooting industry. They are not objective observers, they are there to push product, and reinforce your fantasizes. Humans are capable of infinite self deceit, and that is very profitable to industry. Shooting is a skill, you must go down to the range and practice to be a good shooter.
I had two 270 Win's that I extensively tested at CMP Talladega, the first is this 50's custom rifle.

It did have a Pfieffer barrel, which was a premium barrel in its day.



I had to bed the rifle and free float the barrel to get round groups.





the only bullets it really liked were 150's



and that is about as good as the rifle shoots.

this is what the rifle will do at 300 yards. It will more or less hold the seven inch ten ring, which is adequate for a hunting rifle. It is not a target rifle. I am the second owner, the first owner was gushing about its accuracy. Which goes to show that people are not objective observers. Based on my targets of the rifle in its original bedding, the first owner was no doubt applying the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and seeing only what he wanted to see. The rifle was anything but accurate. And, even after bedding, it is not as accurate as he thought. But, it is fine for a hunting rifle.



greasing my bullets to reduce jacket fouling and to have stress free, perfectly fire formed cases



I wanted a FN Mauser Deluxe, because I think the M98 action is the best rifle action ever designed.



The barrel, it turns out, is not as good as the advertising.




I bedded the action, removed the stock channel bedding applied by a previous owner, and the rifle more or less shoots round groups. It does prefer 150 grain bullets





this pre 64 had a 30-06 feather weight barrel that shot poorly, and was slow



so I sent it off to a gunsmith and he installed a custom 270 Win barrel that is 24" forward of the receiver.



I wanted a SAKO contour barrel, which happens to be the same contour as the F34 barrel. I sent a F34 barrel to copy, and these are the dimensions



first time I took it out, and shot prone with a sling, things were looking promising



on at 200 yards



on at 300 yards



too wind sensitive at 600 yards, but good group



I am surprised on how good the groups are considering these are pulled bullets.

this barrel prefers 150 grain bullets to the 130's







but, I had to cut my loads. I am keeping my 150 grain velocities at or below 2700 fps. If velocities are much above 2700 fps, primers blow and pierce. And I am keeping my 130 grain velocities at, or around 2800 fps. If velocities creep up to 2900 fps, I get pierced and blown primers.



I have not put any rounds through ballistic gelatin, I am hopeful that they as good as the advertizing. I believe that a well designed bullet will mushroom properly, and if fired within a velocity range that promotes good bullet expansion (most cup and core do not expand under 1800 fps) than this cartridge will be effective if the penetration is there. The cartridge did shoot well once I got a quality barrel and a quality chamber job. The action was trued, the bolt face and lugs trued, so this rifle has had more accuracy work than usual. I don't know the velocity down range, and based on my shooting abilities, if I took it hunting, I think 300 yards is about my limit. Maybe a bit over if things were calm. I want to say, I am shooting in competition virtually every weekend, half rifle, and half Bullseye Pistol. I know that many of those who shoot maybe twice a year, think themselves world champions, but you know, unless you practice a lot, you are deluded about your abilities. Keep your shots within your capabilities, not your vanities.

Personally, I am more of a 30-06 fan. I can push the same weight bullets faster, or with less pressure at the same velocities. The 20% larger diameter does not mean much unless someone has ballistic gelatin data to prove their argument.

In terms of the 270 Win having no purpose when introduced, I would agree to that. If you model the shooting industry as a an industry whose entire purpose is the maximization of profit, than it can be deduced that cartridge introductions are not there to fill a customer need, but to increase profit for the industry.

I currently own an older edition of Cartridges of the World. Newer versions are even larger, mine is hundreds of pages, about the size of an old phone book. On the introduction of each and every commercial cartridge there was an advertising campaign touting how the new cartridge uniquely met some urgent need that was not addressed by any other cartridge. Industry has evolved the sales pitch over the last 100 years. What I see in the shooting magazines after WW1 is this consistent push for velocity increases and the evolution of the kinetic energy theory of lethality, which favors velocity increases. Velocity claims for cartridges of the era are just fantastic, and because cheap, inexpensive chronographs did not exist, there was no independent way for the customer to determine the veracity. Post WW2 the horsepower race just continued with the Winchester Magnums, Weatherby Magnums, and thousands of wild cats based on the Holland and Holland magnums. Each and every cartridge was touted as meeting some urgent need, velocity was God. If you had the velocity then trajectory was unimportant at range, and velocity was equaled with lethality. Cartridges were sold as having so much "wallop" that all you had to do was hit the animal, anyplace, and the wallop would do the rest. Shooting skills were really not needed anymore. Just point and blast away! "Don't worry, its a Weatherby!"



The velocity era more or less hit its peak in the 1960's and fizzled in the 1990's when cheap and affordable chronographs became available. Customers were able to compare cartridges and found the velocity claims of the magnums highly inflated, but the recoil was real!

A trend away from punishing cartridges seems to be just around the introduction of cheap chronographs and a market shift for ultra high ballistic bullets and super accuracy. There are fewer and fewer hunters each year, and more paper punching and rock busting at distance. There is a strong "sniper" subculture, and long range, high ballistic, but low recoil cartridges, are the current trend. And we are seeing cartridge introductions to fill these urgent needs. A recent cartridge introduction, the 300 PRC, is a belt less replacement for the 300 Win Mag. The author claimed that ballistic ally, there was absolutely no velocity difference between the 300 PRC and the 300 Win Mag, 30 Nosler, 300 Norma Mag, 300 Rem Ultra Mag, but the 300 PRC was an urgent need because 1) it did not have a belt, and 2) the other cartridges have larger throat free bores which mean they are less accurate at extreme ranges.

So, a whole new cartridge is necessary because of the difference in chambering reamers. Freebore could not be reduced for all the other cartridges because SAAMI would not allow chambering reamers to be altered. Ergo, a new cartridge was not only justified, it was an urgent need.

Current justifications for introductions of new cartridges are being based around 0.008" differences and free bore, and the need to make hits at 2000 yards. One can only wonder where this spiral of infinitesimal differences will end. Probably somewhere between the mass of the electron and its wavelength and hits beyond the horizon.

I believe Noam Chomsky's statement on advertising: the purpose of advertising is to create ill informed consumers who make irrational choices. An examination of the thousands of cartridges in the book Cartridges of the World just shows how true this is. Each and every cartridge was touted unique, special, and urgently needed, and yet the differences between the one on the top of the page, and the bottom of the page, is infinitesimally small.

So if someone claims that there was no real need for a cartridge introduction, he is probably right from the consumer's viewpoint. But from a profit standpoint, it was needed. Industry has to increase profits, or their stock price will drop, so I am going to claim that the introduction of a cartridge is more driven by profit needs than performance needs.

500 Jeffery 3 shot group at 50 yards. My 45 year old Remington BDL in 270 Win is more accurate, shoots groups like these or better all day at 100 yards. I just don't have any targets to post.





"Only accurate rifels are interesting"

Slamfire,

Thank you for that informative and well written piece, and the time it took to post all of the pics.

I have never seen that Weatherby ad, and was shocked by its claim. I had no idea that people could be so misled, and as Noam Chomsky stated, THAT was the intended goal of the ad, and much other advertising of course.

I was a wee lad when Weatherby was at its high point, so I didn't know that about their claims of their cartridges and rifles at that time period: "No need to hit a vital spot..."

Wow.

quote:

But if it had not been developed I guarantee that no one would miss it.

Along with a host of other cartridges.

A firearms company goal is to make money if a new cartridge helps them do that.

More power to them.

Assuming the 270 Win was not invented, then how could I know what I was missing. Since, it was invented and I have used it, I am sure grateful it does exist.

I have no issue getting 140 grain bullets to 2950 fps. If I need or want more then I have a 7 mm STW.

I have not shot gel at 100 yards with a 270 Win. I have shot a 210 pound fallow buck through the top of the lungs that dropped as if he was spines. You could not get within 5 yards of him wo getting covered in blood. That is enough wound theory for me.

I also blew an exit wound 10 inches wide in a 180 pound whitetail.

I was raised and did hate the 270 Win until I used the 7mm/08 with a 140 grain ballistic tip at a sedate 2770 FPS and went, “Huh, that worked better than it should have.”

I have always loved my 270 Win. How accurate it is, easy to reload for, easy to shoot. Almost all one shot kills on deer, javelina, elk and bear. I never knew how under powered it was until I started elk hunting with my 500 Jeffery

I had a .270 Weatherby. Great round and caliber. Can’t go wrong with the .270 Winchester. Fast and flat shooting. I sold the Weatherby though and went with the 7mm rem mag because the 7mm has a wider selection of bullets weights as well as a bit more power.

Now't wrong with a 270. But you could say the same for any calibre that shoots a good 120 to 160 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of above 2650 fps. With the 57mm plus long cartridge cases you have plenty of case capacity to use plenty of powder to get velocities up 3000 ish fps with reasonably heavy calibre bullets of a decent BC. These will shoot flat so with a 1" zero range is immaterial till get out to 250yards and on longer shots, they are more forgiving in range estimation / finding.

Where they possible have drawbacks is on close range game where high velocities can give bullet blow up. But that is much more down to choice of bullet than calibre.

So is the 270 a good calibre - absolutely. Would I change out a a good rifle in 7x57, 7x64, 280, 30-06 for a 270 - no - very little point to doing so.

Any of the above calibres will do a good job as a good all round hunting rifle that can be used on pretty much anything that walks this planet. If you need bigger that's when the 375 H&H picks up the baton.

I absolutely love my 270 with 140gr Accubonds for blesbuck (whitetail), warthog, fallow deer sized animals, but notice a distinct improvement in killing power when I move to my 300 WSM for kudu (elk)- sized animals.
Still very possible to kill the bigger animals, but the margin for error is noticeable.

.270 is my favorite hunting caliber, my current .270 is a Tikka T3 Lite and it has been a great rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
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!

This, and when copper bullets are considered, this in SPADES!

A 270 pushing an 85 grain Barnes at top speed will get anyone's (or anything's) attention. I have shot a bunch of deer with Barnes 110 TTSXs and haven't come close to stopping one in deer yet. There is nothing in North America that I would be worried about shooting with a 130 grain mono regardless of caliber. There are actually few animals anywhere that need much more than a decently placed 130 grain mono, and probably 90% of the shooters I have observed would not only be better off with the modest recoil of 130 grain bullets, but much better off avoiding anything bigger.

Pros: It is almost a 30-06

Cons: It isn't quite a 30-06

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The .284 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS is no better for the big stuff than a .277 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS.

BUT! A 175 gr/7mm at 2960 - 3015 fps DOES make a difference "for the big stuff"!

I've owned and handloaded a .270 Win in a 700 Remington SS with a syn. stock and 22" barrel. It was an "investment" as I knew I could make some profit on its sale -- which I did. In the meanwhile I tried 130s, 140's and 150's in it with handloads. I WAS pleasantly surprised! I attained 3000 fps from 150s and a bit over 3000 fps from 140s. But my Rem 700 in 7 Rem Mag from a 24" gave 2940 fps from 175s. And my Ruger #1 in 7 Rem Mag with a 26" gave an honest 3015 fps from 175s. And those were book loads.

Now, if anyone wants to suggest to me that a 150gr in .277, and an SD of .279 is equal in results on BIG game as a 175gr with an SD of .310 and consequent higher BCs, on long range shooting of a 1400 lb moose or 800 lb bear, I'll question them on what they've been smoking! That's under all conditions and angles!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The .284 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS is no better for the big stuff than a .277 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS.

BUT! A 175 gr/7mm at 2960 - 3015 fps DOES make a difference "for the big stuff"!

I've owned and handloaded a .270 Win in a 700 Remington SS with a syn. stock and 22" barrel. It was an "investment" as I knew I could make some profit on its sale -- which I did. In the meanwhile I tried 130s, 140's and 150's in it with handloads. I WAS pleasantly surprised! I attained 3000 fps from 150s and a bit over 3000 fps from 140s. But my Rem 700 in 7 Rem Mag from a 24" gave 2940 fps from 175s. And my Ruger #1 in 7 Rem Mag with a 26" gave an honest 3015 fps from 175s. And those were book loads.

Now, if anyone wants to suggest to me that a 150gr in .277, and an SD of .279 is equal in results on BIG game as a 175gr with an SD of .310 and consequent higher BCs, on long range shooting of a 1400 lb moose or 800 lb bear, I'll question them on what they've been smoking! That's under all conditions and angles!

Bob

7mm Mag with a 24" or 26" barrel vs .270 Win. with a 22" barrel.

That's an interesting comparison!

I don't think anyone would contest that a 7mm Rem Mag with a 24" barrel handloaded, will outdo a 270 Win handloaded or factory vs factory. It comes at the cost of some recoil, but they are both pussycats. I too handload my BDL in 270 Win with a 22" barrel to 3000 fps with 150g Partitions. It is a sure killer on elk, deer and black bear. The 7mm Rem Mag will reach out further, hit harder, and may be enough, for a brave soul, to take on a 9 to 10 foot Alaskan brown bear

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
I don't think anyone would contest that a 7mm Rem Mag with a 24" barrel handloaded, will outdo a 270 Win handloaded or factory vs factory. ( . . . ) The 7mm Rem Mag will reach out further, hit harder, and may be enough (. . .)

Precisely how I think things through: Hypothetically, if you are okay with a 7mm Mag's energy, trajectory and etc. at 450 yards, why would you not be satisfied by a .270 at a lesser range when the trajectory, energy and etc. are roughly the same?

quote:

Originally posted by B L O'Connor:

quote:

Originally posted by .458 Only:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The .284 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS is no better for the big stuff than a .277 projectile weighing 140 grains at 2700-3000 FPS.

BUT! A 175 gr/7mm at 2960 - 3015 fps DOES make a difference "for the big stuff"!

I've owned and handloaded a .270 Win in a 700 Remington SS with a syn. stock and 22" barrel. It was an "investment" as I knew I could make some profit on its sale -- which I did. In the meanwhile I tried 130s, 140's and 150's in it with handloads. I WAS pleasantly surprised! I attained 3000 fps from 150s and a bit over 3000 fps from 140s. But my Rem 700 in 7 Rem Mag from a 24" gave 2940 fps from 175s. And my Ruger #1 in 7 Rem Mag with a 26" gave an honest 3015 fps from 175s. And those were book loads.

Now, if anyone wants to suggest to me that a 150gr in .277, and an SD of .279 is equal in results on BIG game as a 175gr with an SD of .310 and consequent higher BCs, on long range shooting of a 1400 lb moose or 800 lb bear, I'll question them on what they've been smoking! That's under all conditions and angles!

Bob

7mm Mag with a 24" or 26" barrel vs .270 Win. with a 22" barrel.

That's an interesting comparison!

The point is in the standard 7mm cartridges being the 7mm Mauser, 7mm/08, 280 Rem, 7x64B, 7mm Rem Mag even most folks are shooting 140 grain bullets at 2800-2950 FPS. The 270 Win throws the 140 grain bullet at 2800-2950 FPS. As I have said many times, my 7mm STW is a significant step up if I need more.

Until the high BC craze, Hornady did not load a 175 grain 7mm Rem Mag.

I will stand by what I said no one is gaining or loosing comparing the standard cased .284 caliber bullets using 140 grain bullets at 2800-2950 FPS against a .277 caliber bullet 140 grain weight at 2800-2950 FPS.

I do not contest the 7Rem Mag with a 175 grain bullet at 2900 FPS is more. Is it really significantly more than the .277 caliber bullet 160 grains at 2800 FPS? The reader can be the judge.

If I need a 175/7mm bullet, then what I need is a larger cartridge.

Yes, the a 160 grain bullet at 3207 FPS is a good step up from the 270 Win. That is what I used on my Red Stag that dressed 440 pounds. I have used a 375 Ruger and 35 Whelen for my cow elk. I do not see a standard 7mm or a 30/06 as a first choice elk sized game cartridge. However, they are fine and useable just like the 270 Win.

For big bears, moose, eland, Cape buffalo hand me a 338 WM, 35 Whelen, 358 STA, 375 Ruger or HH, or 40 plus.

These 7mm posts crack me up. I don’t think I have ever seen more people defend their decision than the 7mm crowd. Doesn’t matter if you are shooting 22lr or throwing rocks, they always appear. Reminds me of Stuart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvbFMGmImg