Molar, I bought a 7mag and 300RUM just for elk or anything bigger than a big mulie or a bou. I know a 270 will down an elk but I agree with you, there are much better choices out there, and it makes arguing with the wife a lot easier why I NEEDED more rifles, so the animal wouldn't suffer at all. Works everytime.

I have to ask this question too,as to why a 7mm mag wasn't necked down to a 270?This too would have been a great caliber falling right in between a 264 Win mag and a 7mm Rem.mag.

The 270 Weatherby is a great round,I was wondering why a non-Weatherby version never came out.As popular as the 270 was and still is,one would think more 270 versions would have came out over time.

Maybe because it would be considered too overbore like the 264?

I know a lot of guys out there aren't going to like it but here I go anyways.

In my opinion there isn't a need for a 270 let alone a 270-08.

I believe it also may have been Jack O'Conner but I'm not 100% sure that wrote the article about the 270 never being the most accurate rifle. That's why companies don't make match ammo for a 270, and also why competition shooters don't use 270s. It's not a precision shooting gun.

Sorry to all the diehard 270 guys but the truth hurts sometimes. I have shot many 270s and haven't been impressed.
I'll stick with a 308, 30-06, 280, and many fine others.

one thing, it's more fun to have a 257 Roberts AND a 300H&H, than a 270, let alone a 27-08. The 270 Savage was an attempt to make it work in a lever rifle...same-same 27-08.

Jack O'Connor never took himself hunting alone either. Elmer Keith was a guide for decades. Jack O'Connor never shot (as far as we know) competitively; Elmer Keith went to Perry every year for decades and did rather well.
JO did not like recoil and made up to an extent by knowing just where to put the bullet, and let the guide take care of any problems. Keith was more of a hunter/stalker and worked to get close to the game.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by usmc1980:
I know a lot of guys out there aren't going to like it but here I go anyways.

In my opinion there isn't a need for a 270 let alone a 270-08.

I believe it also may have been Jack O'Conner but I'm not 100% sure that wrote the article about the 270 never being the most accurate rifle. That's why companies don't make match ammo for a 270, and also why competition shooters don't use 270s. It's not a precision shooting gun.

Sorry to all the diehard 270 guys but the truth hurts sometimes. I have shot many 270s and haven't been impressed.
I'll stick with a 308, 30-06, 280, and many fine others.

Well, the good news is that your opinion is in the vast minority. Apparantly all of the rifle makers disagree as there is a never ending demand, i.e., NEED for the 270 and sales show it. Much more so than the 280. And that is by a substantial margin.

The 270 is in fact a very accurate hunting rifle, and never was intended to be a competition rifle. How can MOA and .5 MOA be considered to be inaccurate from a 270? In this day and age, if you can't load up a sound rifle chambered in 270 to shoot less than an inch, then perhaps you're missing something in your loading technique or shooting.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you regarding whether or not the truth hurts with respect to the 270 not being a competition caliber. I'm not certain anyone here thinks it should have been. I know I don't. I also think the 308 is a better choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Baldhunter:
The 270 Weatherby is a great round,I was wondering why a non-Weatherby version never came out.As popular as the 270 was and still is,one would think more 270 versions would have came out over time.

There were wildcats, but when it cames to voting with one's wallet no 270 magnum never really caught fire. The 270 WSM might just hang on, but most hunters can't shoot up to their 270 Winchesters let alone make use of the extra range a magnum provides.

the 708 is .007 bigger (fold a piece of computer paper in 2, and press VERY hard... that much) and has the mystique (that and 3 bucks will get you a coffee at starbucks) of the 7mm

jeffe

There is one RNOVI!! Right in my gun locker.

Aloha, Mark

The main problem with a .270-308?
There are too many other more interesting things in line ahead of it.

Even before the .270-08, there was the .270 Savage, made, naturally, by necking down the .300 Savage case. It too, according to Ackley, "almost equals the .270 Win. ballistics".....

So what's wrong with a 6.8 Remington SPC, that's a .277 caliber round.

CZ needs to offer their 527 Carbine in 6.8 SPC, that'd be downright handy.



Be a great deerkiller for women and kids to use.

Because it is not needed.

quote:

CZ needs to offer their 527 Carbine in 6.8 SPC, that'd be downright handy.

Be a great deerkiller for women and kids to use.

It would make an even nicer 6.5 Grendel. My wife and kids might get to use it after I'm done with it...

Better get used to the .277 diameter as it will be here for a long time because it is a
well balanced cartridge.

in agreement or not as long as it has been around it must be doing something right.
Cal301906

QUOTE]I would make an even nicer 6.5 Grendel. My wife and kids might get to use it after I'm done with it...[/QUOTE]

Agreed, if there were guns and ammo readily available, in bolt actions, I'd be interested, a PPC sized Sako repeater comes to mind! But now I am eyeing the 6.5x47 Lapua match. The Grendel IMHO is a much better sporting round and even military than the 6.8. Just my .02.

One only needs to compare ballistics.

Kind of an interesting thread. Might as well chime in, I guess. I considered having a 270 Redding built after reading an article in (I think it was) Guns magazine many years ago. Why, because it offered "almost" .270 Win ballistics with slightly more than .243 Win recoil. Also the shorter fatter case has some theoretical advantages, accuracy wise. I would not consider having one built now. Why, because I have a .270WSM, which can be loaded down to .270 Redding levels or up to (almost) 7mm Rem Mag levels.
So why wasn't a .270-08 ever offered? Simple. Because it wouldn't do anything that the .270 Win. can't do better, and most Americans want bigger, faster everythings. Which is why the .260 Remington isn't more popular, even though it is a great cartridge (and too few of us yanks have figured out just how cool those long 6.5 mm bullets are).
The next question should be: then why did the .308 Winchester make it? The 30-06 can do everything the .308 can do and more! Simple answer, because for a brief time, it was the official cartridge of the US military, which pretty much guarantees a cartridge's success. This also explains the success of the .223 remington, even in the face of the superior .22-250. While we americans love our machismo, we aren't stupid and with cheap ammo and brass available, we will take advantage of it..
So my plan is to forget the .270-08 custom, shoot the heck out of my Stevens 200 in .243 and once I wear out the throat, rebarrel it to .260 remington for the perfect gun cabinet mate to my Howa in 6.5x55 swede. Maybe go for a 24" barrel to make up for the Swede's slight case capacity edge. Even if they drop the .260 remington down the road, there will always be .243 brass to neck up, or .7mm-08 or .308 Win brass to neck down. Maybe I will even rebarrel my .270WSM to a 6.5WSM when the time comes, now that Nosler has introduced the 130 gr 6.5mm Accubond.

Well I guess my answer would be in the form of a question. Is there enough difference between .277 and .284 to matter???

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Well I guess my answer would be in the form of a question. Is there enough difference between .277 and .284 to matter???

Nope.