Either the .270 is one of the most inherently accurate rounds you can buy a rifle chambered for, or I'm just very lucky with the three I have bought over the years.

My latest purchase is an older (don't know how old) Ruger M-77, Mark II used All-Weather that I picked up last week at David's Gun Room in Norcross, Georgia. Someone had traded it in and David had it priced at $399.00 with an older 2-10x50 Simmons Aetec scope. Since I needed a rifle to replace my son's Model 700 ADL .270 (also with an Aetec scope) that was stolen last year, and since this one appeared in "new" condition, I bought it. He'll get it for Christmas. The one that was stolen was the first sub-MOA out-of-the-box rifle I ever bought. It came with that cheap Remington injection-molded stock that only be thrown away if it doesn't shoot -- luckily, it did!

I came home and loaded up a bunch of .270 rounds with 140-grain Accubonds and H4831sc, and headed to the range. First thing I noticed was that all loads shot well, but not exceptional (1.25-1.75). However, the rifle was vertically stringing the groups. If I could get them to cloverleaf, then those groups would come way down. The other problem was the trigger pull was atrocious. So I took it to a gunsmith the next day.

I simply had the smith "stone" the trigger from seven pounds to a little over three pounds. He did nothing else.

I took it back to the range the next day with a settled-upon load of 58.5 grains of H4831sc, behind a 140-grain Accubond (chronoed a little over 2900 fps). The first group shot 1-inch; the next 5/8-inch; the next 1/2-inch. All the groups were perfect cloverleafs!

The only thing I can figure is when the smith took the action out of the stock to access the trigger, and then put it back, he must have tightened a screw or two that had been loose. The rifle shot so well, that I carried it on opening day of Georgia's deer season yesterday and shot an excellent 9-pointer, offhand at 100 yards. The deer "bang-flopped" (have not decided if I am going to tell my son that dad "broke-in" his new rifle for him).

Like I said, this is my third .270 and all of them have shot exceptionally well. The other one still with us is my youngest son's M-77, Mark II with a walnut stock that shoots sub-MOA all day with a variety 150-grain bullets (had to bed it, however to get it to do so).

Now, I got lots of rifles and lots of calibers that most all shoot very well, however it usually takes lots of work to get them to do so. None have been as easy to get to shoot as my .270s.

No point to all this rambling. Just excited that I made another good purchase of a .270.

I can't say if it's inherant accuracy or if it's that 270's are easy to shoot well but every 270 Winchester I've ever had shot well. It's one of the reason's the 270 Winchester is such a venerable round.......................DJ

If you are hunting deer, hogs, thin skinned exotics etc, the good old .270 is really hard to beat. I have a Winchester Featherweight in .270 that shoots the same 58.5gr of H-4831 but with 130gr Speer Boattails really well.

Congrats on the kill and a great shooting rifle.

I have a .270 that shoots real well also !
But it took 2 or 3 tries to find one that would.
The one I have now is a old 1953 FN delux.
Looks great and shoots as good as it looks.
I had a pre64 featherweight that sucked, and a still sucked after i rebarreld it and restocked it.
When I say sucked it was about 1.5 inches no matter what I di with it.
Then a remington ADL with a bushnell elite 3200 3X9. It was about the same.
Some of you would say an inch and a half is good enough.
When my marlin 1895 45/70 shoots 3 into just over an inch at 100 , I expect my bolt guns to be very close to MOA.
I would like to get a Ruger #1A in 270, or 30,06.
Dandy for carry and my 7X57 #1A shoots great !
...tj3006

I've never had a 270, factory or custom, that wouldn't shoot well.

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:

quote:

I came home and loaded up a bunch of .270 rounds with 140-grain Accubonds and H4831sc, and headed to the range.

Very good bullet. A bullet one can use for everything from long range mule deer to Elk. Looking to ballistic velocity at 400 & 500 yard range, the Accubond is equal to a 7mm Rem mag shooting Failsafe of equal mass. The Accubond retains excellent downrange energy and accuracy.



A .270 Win. has many good characteristics contributing to good accuracy:

- It is built on a long action and bullets can be seated out far with no magazine limit. Would not buy a short action rifle nor a short magnum caliber; poor magazine clearance and usually seating depth restriction.

- Good Ballistic Coefficiency.

- Low recoil which is probably the main reason it is shot so accurately. While shootng mine, don't even think about recoil.

- Has a very long throat allowing good seating depth variation; A trait shared by the 7mm Mauser. In contrast, belted magnum's or the .308 class of cartridges are poor in neck length.





Mine, Dad's and brother's .270 all shoot good.

I think that the long case neck is a contributory factor. Certainly I prefer long neck cartridge cases for accuracy. But if I had the choice and the two were equally availbale I'd pick the 280 Remington everytime!

Every 270 I have loaded for shot at least into 1 1/2 inches with any factory load and under an inch with 3 shot groups and handloads. My previous 270 on a Mauser action would put three touching with certain loads.

I have an old Ruger 77 tang safety in 270 that was my first deer rifle. In hands far more capable than mine, I have seen that rifle shoot groups under an inch using the old factory Winchester 130 gr Silvertips. I have no problem keeping them under 1-1/2" myself with that load. (Incendently, the Winchester Silvertip, not to be confused with the Ballistic Silvertip, is my favorite bullet of all time).
Seems like I read somewhere or someone once told me the Ruger 77's were not known for good out of the box accuracy. May be, but I can't complain about mine and it sounds like yours is on the money too! Congrats on the 9pt. What did he score?

Adam

He'll score in the 120s (maybe). I doubt if I'll ever score him. His rack is tall and fairly heavy, but lacks width (16" inside measurement).

I've got a great cell phone picture, but can't figure out how to post it. It's different from posting regular digital pictures, which I do all the time.

I have had several .270s and all of them have been accurate. My latest one was a gun show purchase that was a cobbled up M700 Remington. It was an older rifle without the graffiti on the bbl. stuck in a black factory sythetic stock for a magnum bbl. channel. I glassed it and put a 4x Redfield on it and consistantly shot 1/2 inch groups with factory Federal ammo. The only one I had that was finicky was a M-77 Ruger, like all the Rugers I've had. Sorry. I have always had a 270 although I don't claim to be a 270 fan. Go figure. Several years ago John Wooters wrote and article for Petersen's Hunting about the 270 in which he stated that he did not belive the 270 was inherently accurate and probably a little less accurate than run of the mill 30-06s. I personally belive that any rifle put together properly with quality components will shoot well regardless of the caliber. All of mine have shot well enough to take any game that I have turned them toward. Most guns will shoot better than the shooter is capable of anyway.

quote:

Most guns will shoot better than the shooter is capable of anyway.

Yup!!

When I was the range master at a public shooting range it seemed factory that with factory rifles shooting factory ammunition the .270's were slightly more accurate than the 30-06's.

Possibly the .270's were owned by more experienced riflemen, or the slightly lower recoil of the .270's made them easier to shoot. Inherently more accurate? It would take a more scientific sampling than mine to say.

My 270 did this to a 30/06 case at 200 yards!

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I've never had a 270, factory or custom, that wouldn't shoot well.

I've never had a 270, period. But if they're so darned "inherently' accurate, why don't they show up at registered competition matches?

How can it be a winner in the game fields only?

I'd say they don't show up at registered competition matches because there are so few match bullets available. I think 270's shoot so well because bullets only had to be designed for one cartridges velocity range and the cartridge has a long neck making it very flexible in bullet seating depth. Maybe since you have never had a 270 you ought to build or buy one and see for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
I've never had a 270, period. But if they're so darned "inherently' accurate, why don't they show up at registered competition matches?

How can it be a winner in the game fields only?

I find that most people who don't like the .270 have never owned one and have usually never shot one either. It offers light recoil and great trajectory with plenty of power down range I mean what isn't to like? With bullets like the Accubond and a few others offering better ballistics than the 7mm of equal weight and design, again what isn't to like?

The reason the .270 Win doesn't show up in registered competition has already been stated about the lack of match grade bullets. Why is it a winner in game fields only? Winchester designed it that way, it was made for Western Big Game hunting not registered composition. Winchester saw a need that wasn't being filled in the hunting arena in 1925 not one on the shooting range. Plus at that time Americas distaste for anything metric made it a better choice than the 7mm-06.

quote:

I've never had a 270, period. But if they're so darned "inherently' accurate, why don't they show up at registered competition matches?

How can it be a winner in the game fields only?

Perhaps it is to do with the length of the action? The longer action would be heavier. Another factor could be that bench rest shooting kinda started off with smaller calibers like the 222?

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:

With bullets like the Accubond and a few others offering better ballistics than the 7mm of equal weight and design, again what isn't to like?

Equal weight only. Different designed bullets fly different.

Accubond in .270 vs. Failsafe in 7mm being a good example.

TSX would be best overall choice for retained weight and long range velocity. Provided it shoots accurately. If not, would shoot Accubond.

All of mine past and present have been Tack drivers!




Cal30

One of the things that I find funny about the 270 vs 280 article is that the 270 shoots .277" bullets that are closer to the real 7mm (.2755) than the 280's .284 bullets (7.21").......................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:

With bullets like the Accubond and a few others offering better ballistics than the 7mm of equal weight and design, again what isn't to like?

Equal weight only. Different designed bullets fly different.

Accubond in .270 vs. Failsafe in 7mm being a good example.

TSX would be best overall choice for retained weight and long range velocity. Provided it shoots accurately. If not, would shoot Accubond.

I'm not sold totally on the TSX especially as far as long range goes. After a certain point most any bullet will work well. I think that the TSX is great at close range when a bullet has the most velocity and a bullet is most likely to fail.

I'll choose a moderate velocity heavy bullet over a light blistering one any day. I've looked at the 110 TTSX and wasn't impressed. They loose their velocity too fast down range even though it looks impressive out the muzzle. Give me 130 to 150 grains any day for the .270 Win.

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
I find that most people who don't like the .270 have never owned one and have usually never shot one either. It offers light recoil and great trajectory with plenty of power down range I mean what isn't to like? With bullets like the Accubond and a few others offering better ballistics than the 7mm of equal weight and design, again what isn't to like?

As good as the 270 is, I have never had one that didn't kick. It is a very good cartridge, but it isn't the equal of the 7m/m and never will be.

Originally posted by taylorce1:

quote:

I'm not sold totally on the TSX especially as far as long range goes.

Would only shoot 140 and 150 gr TSX in .270.

quote:

I think that the TSX is great at close range when a bullet has the most velocity...

The TSX is the best bullet design in .338 caliber and bigger if accurate in one's rifle. Even at long range and slower velocity, the petals need only open minimally. Hemmorage diameter will still be good.

Bought a 7mm and 160 TSX. Looking at the bullet, looks like one can fill the tip cavity with instant glue and keep out wind. This hole gets bigger as caliber goes up.

Failsafe would probably retain much better long range velocity if the hollow tip was filled with instant glue.

I'm not buying it. For years the 280 got a bad rap for being less accurate than the 270. It really only comes down to good bbls on good actions bedded properly.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
I'm not buying it. For years the 280 got a bad rap for being less accurate than the 270. It really only comes down to good bbls on good actions bedded properly.

If that were true, the 6 PPC would not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
I find that most people who don't like the .270 have never owned one and have usually never shot one either. It offers light recoil and great trajectory with plenty of power down range I mean what isn't to like? With bullets like the Accubond and a few others offering better ballistics than the 7mm of equal weight and design, again what isn't to like?

As good as the 270 is, I have never had one that didn't kick. It is a very good cartridge, but it isn't the equal of the 7m/m and never will be.

Never owned a rifle that didn't recoil a little and I never thought the .270 was a heavier recoiling rifle. But hey recoil is all in perspective now isn't it.

Now as what I meant about the .277 caliber bullets having better ballistics than the 7mm was strictly referring to bullets of the same design and weight. I wasn't comparing cartridges so sorry if I was a little misleading. Here are some examples of what I was talking about:

Nosler

Ballistic Tips

150 grain .277 .496 BC .279 SD
150 grain .284 .493 BC .266 SD

Accubond

140 grain .277 .496 BC .261 SD
140 grain .284 .485 BC .248 SD

Partition

150 grain .277 .465 BC .279 SD
150 grain .284 .456 BC .266 SD

Sierra

SBT

140 grain .277 .457 BC .261 SD
140 grain .284 .416 BC .284 SD

150 grain .277 .483 BC .279 SD
150 grain .284 .436 BC .260 SD

Barnes

TSX

140 grain .277 .404 BC .261 SD
140 grain .284 .394 BC .248 SD

Just for grins here are some Match grade bullets to compare.

Sierra Match King

135 grain .277 .488 BC
168 grain .284 .488 BC

Berger VLD

140 grain .277 and .284 .509 BC

So as long as the bullets are of the same design and weight, some of the time the .277 caliber is the better bullet if only by a little. I know I'm splitting hairs here but take it FWIW.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

Bought a 7mm and 160 TSX. Looking at the bullet, looks like one can fill the tip cavity with instant glue and keep out wind. This hole gets bigger as caliber goes up.

Failsafe would probably retain much better long range velocity if the hollow tip was filled with instant glue.

Not sure why you would want to fill a bullet's hollow point with glue, since I don't think it would help the ballistics any. I don't think the hollow point creates as much drag as you think it might, but then again I'm not a bullet expert only a bullet wannabe!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taylorce1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by buckshot:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by taylorce1:

Never owned a rifle that didn't recoil a little and I never thought the .270 was a heavier recoiling rifle. But hey recoil is all in perspective now isn't it.

The .270 today with a full load of 4831 behind a 150gr. bullet in the light weight Stevens mod. 200 had a really noticeable recoil after about 10 shots. Really not a comfortable paper punching rifle. roger

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
I'm not buying it. For years the 280 got a bad rap for being less accurate than the 270. It really only comes down to good bbls on good actions bedded properly.

If that were true, the 6 PPC would not exist.

If you are talking inherently accurate? The diff. in say a 6mmPPC & a 243, both properly setup, will be measured in 0.001" group sizes. Yes, that wins BR comps, but with all the other variables involved in shooting, it truely is splitting hairs. Besides, talking about like carts, ie, 25-06. 270, 280, 30-06, I do not believe one has any serious accuracy advantage over the other. If all the bbls. & actions were the same.

quote:

140 grain .277 .457 BC .261 SD
140 grain .284 .416 BC .284 SD

Typo there! Would that be .248 SD?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

140 grain .277 .457 BC .261 SD
140 grain .284 .416 BC .284 SD

Typo there! Would that be .248 SD?

Fixed it thanks for the heads up!

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
The .270 today with a full load of 4831 behind a 150gr. bullet in the light weight Stevens mod. 200 had a really noticeable recoil after about 10 shots. Really not a comfortable paper punching rifle. roger

I imagine that isn't a pleasurable target round, but should make a fine elk round. Besides why waste a good hunting rifle at the bench for very long the .270 was born to hunt! I imagine as well that when I work up my 200 grain loads for my Stevens 200 in .30-06 they will not be very pleasurable to shoot from the bench either. I sure however that whatever that bullet connects with, as long as I'm doing my part behind the trigger, will be going in my freezer. There are rifles I defiantly use more for paper punching than hunting compared to my .270 Win, but there are a lot more punishing rifles out there to shoot than most .270's.

I find most rifles/calibers are accurate or else I´m just plain lucky!

My 8x68S is a bit finicky with loads but the others hit where they´re pointed at.

I have never owned and inaccurate .270 Win. Everyone I have owned and that is many has shot very well indeed...

I consider the .270 the full equal to the 30-06 and that is no slight praise..The 160 gr. .270 is the equal to the 180 gr. 06, the 130 is better than a 150 gr. 06 and the old 170 and 180 gr. .270 bullets were almost as good as the 200 gr. 30-06 bullets is my take, after using them both a good deal on all sorts of game..

Jack O'Connor knew this and scribed it on many ocassions, I have never found any reason to disagree with Jack on anything in reference to rifles and calibers...

Well said Ray, I was and still am a student of Jack O'Connor. In fact I bought my first hunting rifle in 270 due to his writings. I use my 30-06 a bit more than the 270 nowadays though.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have never owned and inaccurate .270 Win. Everyone I have owned and that is many has shot very well indeed...

I consider the .270 the full equal to the 30-06 and that is no slight praise..The 160 gr. .270 is the equal to the 180 gr. 06, the 130 is better than a 150 gr. 06 and the old 170 and 180 gr. .270 bullets were almost as good as the 200 gr. 30-06 bullets is my take, after using them both a good deal on all sorts of game..

Jack O'Connor knew this and scribed it on many ocassions, I have never found any reason to disagree with Jack on anything in reference to rifles and calibers...

Have you shot moose with the 270? What has been your experience. The reason I'm asking is that recently I'm hearing that moose kind of run off when hit in the boiler room with the 270. Any info?

I shot one in the neck that had been hit in the hindquarter with a 300 Weatherby, it dropped at the shot.

I like your load. My '86 A-Bolt Hunter Likes it also. I use 58grs of H4831SC with the 140 Accubond also. I can put 140 Ball tips in place of the Accubonds and Shoot in the same hole as the accubonds. This load has killed a monatana Muley for me and quite a few SC whitetails. I have several other calibers that I shoot. But when I take my 270 out and it barks, it always does more than just bark. It takes a bite out of game. Knock on wood,,, I have yet to draw blood with my 270 and loose a deer.

I've never owned a .270 but I have great respect for the cartridge. As a youngster, I used to hang on Jack O'Connor's every word. For you current youngsters, he's the guy that put the .270 on the map.

People into hairsplitting accuracy (not necessary for hunting) know that a short action has less flex than a long one and can thus boost accuracy. .308s generally outshoot .30-06s for this and other reasons, all else being equal. Bench rest shooters have since learned that a shorter and fatter powder column burns more uniformly than a long, thin one as you'd find in the .270 and similar rounds, another factor keeping the .270 off the competition circuit.

When you combine cost, manageable recoil and noise, flat trajactory, a long reach and availability, it's difficult to find another round so well-suited to deer hunting.

i got my sako 75 in 25,06 rebarreled to .270 walther match grade heavy sporter barrel mc millan varmint stock and set trigger i have shot half inch groups at 200 yards with it ,with noama v max in 110 grs also with federal 130 grs