Ok, humor me. Call me curious. Call me stupid. Call me...whatever.

But why isn't there a .270-08?

We've got the following rounds based off the 30-06 (among others...):

25-06, 270 win, 30-06, 35-06 (aka, the Whelen), and a whole host of other rounds based off the classic '06 case.

The .308 was created, in effect, to be a short '06. From the .308 case we have:

22-250, 243, 260 rem, 7mm-08, 308, .358, and others.

And recently now we have the 270 WSM.

What the? Whatever happened to the 270-08? Wouldn't it make sense to have such a round? More accurately, wouldn't it have made sense to have created such a round already? What am I missing here?

Somehow logic escapes me on this. Sure, I doubt the round would be much more effective than the 7mm-08. But based on the success of the 270 win, wouldn't it have made sense to wildcat a 270-08 long before someone wildcated the the 7mm-08?

Or, is there a cartridge out there that I just plain have never heard of before that is the 270-08?

Of course, with the 270 WSM, the concept of a 270-08 is kinda moot. Still, I am curious of the lacking history of why a 270-08 was never created...

Anyone? What am I missing? Logically the 270-08 sounds like it should have been a short-action winner...

Oh yes, have no fear. The .270 Redding is just that - a .308 necked down to .270. Why it never became popular is pretty sure the same reason as all the other exelent rounds that never caught on.

This will probably get pointed out sooner or later anyway. The 270 WSM is not based on a 308 Win case, non of the short mags are. I can't remember which case they borrowed, I think it might have been a Jeffries or something like that. The 22-250 is not based on the 308 either. It is based on the 250-3000 Savage. It does however share the same case head diameter as the 308 & 06 cartridges.
To answer your question I don't know why a short action 270 based on the 308 never caught on but you can bet once the 308 case had gotten into the hands of the wildcatters it wasn't long before someone tried it. My best guess why this wasn't more popular would be the narrow selection of bullets available in that caliber, with the 7-08 available now it would not make much sense to me to limit yourself in that area.
I am a little surprised that there are not more choices out there for the .277 since it has been around so long & seems to be still going strong.
I would prefer something in the 7mm because of the variety of weights & styles available. JMO

quote:

What the? Whatever happened to the 270-08? Wouldn't it make sense to have such a round? More accurately, wouldn't it have made sense to have created such a round already? What am I missing here?

Your question makes sense and, in fact, years ago I thought of having a gun custom chambered for just this round. The fewer choices of bullets, as noted above, would be one reason not to do this.

I think an even better question would by why the 270 Winchester has been so successful. The answer; Jack O'Conner. In my opinion, with the 25/06 and the 280 Remington, we could have done splendidly without the 270 Winchester.

Except that the 270 was around for almost 50years before the 280 or25-06 was a factory option.

The Redding was written up in a GUNS magazine article years ago.....author I believe was a big pistol shooter, built in 22" and achieved around 2950 IIRC with 130s, VERY close to 270 factory ammo speeds and would have made an outstanding deer rifle round.

Winchester I believe dropped the ball on that one, it may have been today what the 7/08 is as Hornady told me at the Shot Show to look for a 270 based on the 30TC case, thinking a 120, yes 120 gr at around 3100-3200.

I hear nothing but praise on the WSM model but many say it may not survive time, re: ammo, etc.

I think that bore would have been well served with 308 case myself. Right between the 7/08 and 260, Winchester should have attempted it to bring it to market, but chose to 'hotrod a short case instead' which extends range some.

quote:

Originally posted by hvy barrel:
The 270 WSM is not based on a 308 Win case, non of the short mags are. I can't remember which case they borrowed, I think it might have been a Jeffries or something like that.

.404 Jeffrey

There is a 270-08 as well as a 270-08 Ackley. You need to find a gunsmith who has the appropriate reamer and presto you have it. How about the 7mm Rem Mag necked to 270? I know just like the 270 weatherby with the exception of an angled shoulder as opposed to Weatherbys bizarre double radius shoulder. Food for thought at the most boring time of year. Cheers!

rnovi

Fear Not. Your federal government, using your hard earned dollars, did indeed look at the 27 cal in a 308 case. It was rejected, most probably because of the big brass who determined that there was only one caliber suitable for military use, the 30.

Why didn't it catch on commercially? Who knows? Lack of bullets may have been one reason but the mm cartridges such as the 6mm, 6.5mm, and 7mm all are successful in spite of the fact that it wasn't too many years ago that there were virtually no metric bullets available in the US.

Ray

There are a couple reasons why a commercial round created by simply necking the 7mm-08 or 308 Win down to .277 has not come to pass.

First is that there is no significant ballistic advantage compared to the existent 7mm-08. Though some handloaders would find it convenient to have a short-action .277 to share component bullets with their long-action 270s, the vast majority of shooters would see no advantage over the already established 7mm-08.

Second is the problem faced by the 270 Win and 280 Rem or the 270WSM and the 7WSM - that is, the cases must differ in some way to prevent the 7mm version being chambered in a .277 version rifle. With the 280 Rem and 7WSM, the shoulder is moved forward. Since the 7mm-08 is already a commercial round, the 277 version would have to have the shoulder moved back - cutting case capacity and impacting its ballistic potential.

.270 Sabi (.270-08) has been around for years - factory ammo is also alvailable (albeit proprietary)

My understanding is that the 277 Titus is a 308 parent case.

What I never understand is this same old song about lack of bullets in the 270 caliber.

90, 100, 110, 115, 120, 130, 135, 140, 150, 160, all available wts.

My God, how many does one need to make a choice?

If the 270-308 did ever go commercial, it would have been just as popular as the 270 with less recoil.

With the 270, IMO, there's no need for a 25-06, or 280....2 calibers for which there was no need.

I had a good friend, recently deceased, that had a custom .270/08 Lilja barrel installed on a Remington Model 7 Action. It handled and shot really well.

Before he died, he told me he had 26 different loads that would shoot at least MOA with that rifle. Of all the rifles he had, I think that one was his favorite. Merg

quote:

First is that there is no significant ballistic advantage compared to the existent 7mm-08. Though some handloaders would find it convenient to have a short-action .277 to share component bullets with their long-action 270s, the vast majority of shooters would see no advantage over the already established 7mm-08.

EXACTLY!!

I am a huge 270 Win fan. I have often thought about the 270-08 to share components with.

But then the only real benefit is the short action. I can load my 270 Win down to the 270-08 velocities. Which isn't much of a download. I have roughly 1000 pieces of 270 win brass, so I can never justify doing th 270-08.

I think a 270-08, loaded with 110gr Barnes TSX's or Sierra pro hunter bullets would make a great light recoiling deer cartridge. But then so do a bunch of other cartridge's already on the market.

The 270-08 AI is an exact duplicate of 270 Win ballistics.

I think Sierra has a 135 BTHP or similar.

To think likely 90-95% of 7/08 users shoot 139/140gr bullets, a 270/08 with 130's would do a majority of uses, 90-100gr for varmints, and 150s for occasional animal larger than deer.

I am forming an opinion the industry does not want a truly versatile 'all around cartridge' so they sell more guns this way.

A good medium capacity 6.5mm -.277 would have options for lighter bullets for small stuff and up to heavies for large game and get it done. Not perfect, but with less recoil than the venerable Springfield 1906.

A 270-08 is a great balanced round for lower 48 in my opinion. Jack O'Connor could have done about all he did with it that he did with the 'long' version.

quote:

Originally posted by MyNameIsEarl:

quote:

Originally posted by hvy barrel:
The 270 WSM is not based on a 308 Win case, non of the short mags are. I can't remember which case they borrowed, I think it might have been a Jeffries or something like that.

.404 Jeffrey

Nope.
50-110/348 Win. (Rimless of course.)
The 404 Jeffery was nominally .545" at the base, whereas the 50-110 was .553" - much closer to the spec'ed .550" of the WSM, not to mention they had the tooling sitting up in the attic.

The 270-08 would no doubt have been a good round but with the success of the 243 and the 7mm-08 it would be hard to squeeze it in between those two and sell a lot of them.

The .270 is ghey enough without making it a corto.

quote:

Originally posted by 390ish:
The .270 is ghey enough without making it a corto.

Huh? Normally we speak English here in the States. I'm not sure what they speak in Virginia though.

Can anyone translate this?

Great commentary here folks. I'm not in much need for a mid-bore - but still I can't help but be drawn to a 270-08. I may, over time, look into how to build one. It truly would be a "one gun - lower 48" rifle.

Just to drop off this one:

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:

From the .308 case we have:

22-250, 243, 260 rem, 7mm-08, 308, .358, and others.

True, except for the 22-250. It is based on the 250 Savage necked down to .22, and it existed long before the .308 case was invented.

quote:

My understanding is that the 277 Titus is a 308 parent case.

The Titus was based on the very similar Savage case and was regarded as a nicely balanced wildcat in its day.

quote:

With the 270, IMO, there's no need for a 25-06, or 280....2 calibers for which there was no need.

Of course if we'd had the sense to stick with the 256 Newton (a very sensible yet potent 6.5) there'd have been no need for the 270 Winchester and its goofy bore diameter.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:

From the .308 case we have:

22-250, 243, 260 rem, 7mm-08, 308, .358, and others.

True, except for the 22-250. It is based on the 250 Savage necked down to .22, and it existed long before the .308 case was invented.

What does the .338 Federal owe its rise too if not the .308 Win?

I can't figure out why anyone would want a 270-08. Bullets typically have lower BC's and SD's that corresponding 6.5 or 7mm bullets. the only real attraction of the 270 is it shoots sort of flat, and that would be lost in a 270-08.

quote:

Originally posted by martinbns:
I can't figure out why anyone would want a 270-08.

Just a guess, but probably for the same reason someone would choose a 308 over a 30.06 or 300 mag, or a 7-08 over a 280 or 280 AI, or 7mag.

In the real world, BCs and SDs don't mean a whole heck of a lot with deer sized game and shots under 200 yards which, I'd bet, is much more common that shots over 200 yards. If hunters were really THAT worried about it, no one would shoot anything but a boat tail and only heavy bullets per caliber.

There's as many if not more hunters out there that haven't got a clue what a SD or BC is anyway. They go to Walmart every year, buy ammo, go shoot a day or so, then kill a heap of deer during the season. We here at AR get hung up on stuff like this but I dismiss a lot of it with most shots since they're not that far anyway. If a 30-30 with a round nose bullet can pass through a deer at 155 yards, or a patch and ball from a muzzleloader can with only 70-80 grains of BP, I can't see why any decent .277 bullet from a 270-08 wouldn't work as well if not much better.

This other stuff about bullet selection gets old to me. I've had several rifles over the years and the more bullets to choose from per caliber actually gives me a headache. It's like going to a tile store and picking one for a new house.

Most hunters that reload have a rifle and pick a bullet or 2 that they really want to use, then they go to work.

When I reloaded for a 308, I only used 150 or 165 grain bullets, and they were either Btips or Speer. That's it. In a sound rifle, and a good reloader, it doesn't take long to get a quality bullet to group good enough to hunt with.

We can opine and argue all day long about the "need" of this caliber or that, but it all boils down to preference.

Why does Ford "need" to make the incredible line up of their F series trucks with 25 different packages per truck? Simple...choices.

I have a safe full of rifles because I want them. But I only need 2 for my hunting. One magnum, one non magnum. And even that is debatable.

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:
Just to drop off this one:

That's the drawing I have too, Mr. Fossdal!

I also have articles on the 270 Redding by
Charles Petty in GUNS magazine from 1989, and
by Wayne van Zwoll in HANDLOADER #146.

For those who think there is no need/market for the 270 Redding, we don't really need the 260, 7mm-08 either since we have the 308!

Come on guys. You can do better than that!

quote:

Errr...why isn't there a .270-08?

Because there is no need for a .277 diameter bullet. You already have two much better choices. The 260 Rem and 7mm-08

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:

quote:

Errr...why isn't there a .270-08?

Because there is no need for a .277 diameter bullet. You already have two much better choices. The 260 Rem and 7mm-08

No need for either of those since we already have the superior 308!

Don

Maybe you should take a look at the 6.5 grendel, it beats the .308 in every aspect and thats out to 800 or a thousand meters........

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla: Maybe you should take a look at the 6.5 grendel, it beats the .308 in every aspect and thats out to 800 or a thousand meters........

Wow fgulla, that's a very bold statement! I shoot long range Benchrest and the 6.5 Grendl would be a long way down my list and well below the 308W. Do you shoot the Grendl at 1000 meters?

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Because there is no need for a .277 diameter bullet. You already have two much better choices. The 260 Rem and 7mm-08

Bwaaa hahahahahahahahahahaaaa.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla: Maybe you should take a look at the 6.5 grendel, it beats the .308 in every aspect and thats out to 800 or a thousand meters........

Wow fgulla, that's a very bold statement! I shoot long range Benchrest and the 6.5 Grendl would be a long way down my list and well below the 308W. Do you shoot the Grendl at 1000 meters?

Ray

Seems we have a difference of opinion?

I don't have one, but you guys are making me think about having one built...

Seems to me that if they had commercialized the .25 Souper and the .270-08, there would not be a .243, .260, or 7mm-08. I believe .25 to be a much better dual purpose caliber than 6mm. If it had been introduced at the proper time, the .270-08 could have capitilized on the .270 Winchester's popularity, and would have been a great short action deer round. I have a .260, and think it's a great round, but is not really as suitable a deer/varmint round as a .25 Souper would be. Just not as good a selection of varmint weight bullets. IMHO, 85s are a little more than I want to spend a day shooting crows with. The .260 is probably just as good a deer round as a .270-08 would be, but being a 6.5, was pretty much doomed from the start. I guess my biggest reason for wishing they had commercialized the .270-08 is I think it might have been a commercial success where it looks like the .260's days may be numbered....

John

Ackley had done some work with 270/08s, and also 270 Savages, based on the 300 Savage Case also....

He also did a 270 x 57... and actually it rivaled 270 Winchester velocities with the usual efficient less powder benefits..

All this was back in the 50s and early to mid 60s...

There was also a 30 caliber version of the 57mm case, the 30 American..( 30 x 57)....

I personally think the better bullet selection in 7mm, made the 7/08 more flexible, hence more popular, for the 270/08 to fly commercially...

but it is not a new idea at all, as Mr Fossdahl shows above...

Anyone remember Jack O'Connor? He didn't think much of the 270 either!

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:

With the 270, IMO, there's no need for a 25-06, or 280....2 calibers for which there was no need.

Now hold on one minute Doc. That's a pretty bold statement. IMO(as well as the opinion of several others), the 25-06 is a more versatile cartridge than the 270 win. With a 75 gr. bullet, the 25-06 is more suitable for long range varminting. When loaded with a 120 gr. pill, it is just as effective on deer size game as the 130 gr .277 bullet. Of course there will be someone who says the 270 with a 150 gr. bullet can be used for elk and caribou, but IMO, elk medicine starts with the 30-06.

Well Molar, like you said, it's all opinions.

quote:

Now hold on one minute Doc. That's a pretty bold statement.

Oh, you mean kinda like this one?:

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Because there is no need for a .277 diameter bullet. You already have two much better choices. The 260 Rem and 7mm-08

Seems like someone likes to dish it out but can't take it.

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:but IMO, elk medicine starts with the 30-06.

Based on what? So a 280 AI with a 175 grain bullet just won't do it? a 270 with a 160 Partition won't down a 900 pound bull elk? Better call Wyoming Game and Fish and tell all the wardens and some of the biologists. Let them know that the 270/160 partition they've used for decades no longer does the job.



I think there's a whole lot more people here that "talk" about what is best for elk when they rarely even hunt them. I chose archery myself for my 6x6.

Doc,

I did not say that a 270 with a properly constructed bullet was not capable of taking an elk. A 22-250 with a 60 gr partition or tsx with proper shot placement is capable. Is it the perfect caliber for such a task? Far from it. Likewise, while the 270 win will get the job done, you have to wonder how many elk are lost each year that are shot with a 270. My opinion of the 270 as an elk cartridge is similar to your opinion of the 243 win as a deer cartridge. It is barely adequate. We owe it to the game we hunt to make quick, humane kills. If the only rifle I owned were a 270, then I would be more apt to use it on elk. However, having several different calibers, I usually reach for the 300 or 338 win mag. I realize that calibers of this magnitude are not necessary to take an elk, but an elk hunt costs too much for me to take chances with a marginal caliber. BTW, I retract my earlier statement about the 270 not being a good choice for caribou. However, I still dislike the caliber

I've never read anything from Jack Oconner,I know who he was but liked the 270 without his comments on it.I used to own several,I now own 2.For antelope and deer it can't be beat but for elk or moose I do grab the 300 weatherby or 300WSM or the 300H&H mag for the same reason as the last post.270/08 wouldn't interest me out here in Montana.Just my opinion.Drop-Shot