This is my first post , although I have looked in many times . Just read an article from Outdoor life on the web regarding accuracy of the .270 by Jim Carmichel . This article raised more questions than it answered . Don't mean to start any trouble but I could hardly believe what I was reading . Always thought that the old .270 was known for accuracy and not the other way around . I have three of them myself . Two of which shoot three shots consistently under an inch , and sometimes much better , and the other which alternately groups well and then not so well .From what I've read here and elsewhere I would have said that the .270 is at least as accurate as , say the 30/06 . Probably better by most accounts . I was shocked to hear that a blueprinted action and a SAAMI spec test barreled 17 pound rifle could average no better than 2 1/2 inch groups with factory ammo . To be fair they did say that all of the handloaded ammo shot close to an inch and some of it much better . I thought that in this modern day factory ammo was so good that we hand loaders could scarcely improve on it . So what am I missing here ? Is the .270 mediocre in the accuracy dept. or is it just that factory ammo is crap ? Or is it that the .270 is a sensitve old girl and will only perform when she is fed properly ? I can't remember the last time I shot any factory ammo myself but I'm not that finicky about about my handloads . I make my brass from a batch of 30/06 match that I got cheap from a friend . Trim the necks to length and charge them from the RCBS measure after weighing the first charge . I routinely shoot groups under an inch for three and right at an inch for five shots with my Ruger 77 Mk 1 and my CZ 550 . The BSA is another story . Some groups are great and others are poor . But the worst is not over 2 inches ! How can they have gotten such poor results from the rifle in that test ? Is it factory ammo , or is it the .270?

Accuracy comes from the quality of the rifle and the loads being tuned to match it. The actual cartridge it's chambered for pretty much doesn't matter, one will be as accurate as the other. The 270 isn't any more or less accurate than the 30-06, 280, 243, etc. etc. This business about modern factory ammo being so good that it can't be improved upon is bunk. Factory ammo is never tuned to a particular rifle like a good handload is, that's why it'll never function as well. Factory ammo may be put together fine, but until it's components are adjusted to fit your rifle then it will never work as well as a tuned handload.

Ken

I load for several 270's that love just about any 130gr load. However, my own 270 will not shoot a 130gr better than 1.5" HOWEVER with the 150gr bullet, it will out shoot the other 270's out to 300 yds. Go figure.

I still believe handloads are superior to the new factory stuff.

WN

My 270 Win I shot to 600 yds and got a nice three shoot group 2.5".

Like the others said, its the rifle that counts. Quality made rifles will shoot regardless of what they are chambered for.

Good Luck

Reloader

It sounds like that 17 pound (holy sh*t) rifle was custom made. If the grouping he talked about was 100 yards and could only get 2.5", then it sounds like he got taken by his gunsmith. I would take that boat anchor back and demand a refund. The .270 is a fantastic hunting round. Its not meant to be a benchrest shooter. Find a gun that shoots 1 to 1.5 " consistently and go hunting. If it doesnt do that, its not the .270 cartridge thats the problem, its probably a problem with the gun itself.

IMHO

I had to buy 3 .270s before I got one I was happy with. I bought and rejected a remington 700 ADL.
Then I bought a pre 64 featherweight and after spending a fortune on it , I got rid of it too.
Both were ok acuracy wise about 1.50 at 100, but my marlin 45/70 shoots better than that,so I wanted more from a .270 and the one I have is a very nice old 1951 FN mauser, It is easy moa and I like it alot.
I don't blame the 1st 2 on the cartridge.
Rifles are strange, ya never know how they are gonna shoot till you shoot them
The .270 is a very acurate round and as good as anything on the planet for the avarage hunter.
...tj3006

quote:

I was shocked to hear that a blueprinted action and a SAAMI spec test barreled 17 pound rifle could average no better than 2 1/2 inch groups with factory ammo .

For anyone to say that the 270 Winchester isn't an accurate catridge is just plain BS.

One gun don't speak for the whole.....ever!

The .270 will hold it's own as a hunting rifle as well as any other hunting rifle.

Ken

Thanks for pointing out that article...just finished reading it. My take on it is that it is not the cartridge, but the fact that most factory ammo is not 1 MOA or below.

In the article there benchmark ammo used to determine if the barrel was accurate delivered 6 5-shot groups that averaged 0.624" on the small side and 0.750" on the large side for the same 6 5-shot group average. I's say that is accurate. Not BR accurate, but they did't build a BR rifle either.

So sounds like the ammo manufacturers need to step up the pace amd make their 270 ammo better....but anyone really seriously shooting a 270 in handloading anyway. It's all a mute issue.

If it wasn't for Jack Oconnor and Roy Rogers the .270 and the model 94 in 30-30 would have been history long ago.

It's the rifle, not the cartridge.
It's also probably Carmichael grinding an axe.

I could take the same factory loads and easily beat them with my go to hunting rifle.

I have owned many different 270 rifles and they have all shot respectable. Some better than others of course.

The only time I ever became frustrated was when I was trying to get some old Barnes "X" bullets to shoot. They basically gave a pattern, not a group. I placed the blame on bullets.

re - carmichael and his axe, remember he has been a 280 man forever, and has rarely missed the opportunity to downgrade the 270. i have had 2 270's over the last 37 years, and they both shoot fine. i am sure one could put together a benchrest rifle in 270 that would shoot as well as a 308, but the 270 is first and foremost a hunting cartridge, so hunting accuracy is what is important. a 270 shooting ammo the rifle likes will do all you want to do. anything else is just gravy. have a good day!

I couldn't resist this thread. My experience: I currently have 2, 270's. One a 700 Sendero, and the other a post 64 Model 70. Both shoot under .75 groups, if I do my job. The Sendero will put three in one hole most times. I have been shooting the 270 since 1968, and have always found it to be accurate, and a great performer on game. Of course everyone has his/her opinion, but Jim Carmichael, on the other hand, as was mentioned early surely has an "axe to grind". Thats why when I built my 6.5-06, and because Jim loves the 308 case so much, I dubbed my new rifle 6.5-06FJC, and it is stamped on the barrel. I am sure you guys can get what the "F" stands for, LOL.

Jerry

The 270 Win. is my absolute favorite, plenty of power and low recoil. My current sporter will shoot 1" groups at 200 yds. with 130 and 140gr. Noslers. The 150gr. Barnes tsx will equal that. The only bullet that I am working to tighten a group with is the Nosler 160 Partion.

I have to honest here and say that the 270 isn't my favorite all around rifle, the 30-06 is. That said, I can attest to the accuracy of the 270 being second to none. I've owned three 270 rifles and still have two that are very accurate, consistently shooting .750 groups if I do my job and both are hunting weight rifles. As has already been said however, not every rifle is accurate regardless of the caliber. There is nothing wrong with the 270 for deer sized game and most can be very accurate.

Jim Carmichael has downgraded the .270 since almost the first day he took over as gun editor from Jack O'Connor. His way of seperating himself from a legend I guess. Never seems to phase him that his "experience" with the round is diametricly opposed to so many of his readers.

Jim Carmichael is always right didn't you know? Ask him and I'm sure he'd correct you on all the things you are stupidly incorrect about.


270's don't shoot worth a darn, I've got two of them. Geez look how this lousy POS 6lb rifle shoots:




I'm sure that if it was a 280 it would have put all the shots in 1 hole at 300yds even with the wind shift.



My other stinkin 270 shoots like this:






Just 200yds? Heck if it were a real rifle like a 280 or 260 Panther like Ol Carmicheal has it would probably shoot like that out to 500 or 600yds instead of just 200.

But poor Ol me, I'm not a sainted Gun-God like Carmicheal who's never wrong and has forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know. I guess I'm just stuck with these old "inaccurate" 270's. I'll just have to struggle by with guns that shoot premium hunting bullets into less than 1" at 300yds but won't put them all in 1 hole....................Somehow I think me and my 270's will be just fine............... ..................DJ

As stated before almost any cartridge will give excellent results, assuming barrel, bullet, and bedding are properly done.

I can recall an article, back in the 80’s in Shooting Times where Wayne Simpson, the gunwriter, had built a benchrest 270 Win. He also had a custom built 270 hunting rifle. My recollection is that his benchrest rifle shot some very outstanding .5 MOA groups with factory ammo. He was able to hand load some .5 MOA groups with Nolser hunting bullets. Which surprised him, and me. At that time, and maybe now, there were not any match bullets in .277â€, but those Nolser bullets certainly gave match grade performance.

I have a number of match rifles, with excellent bullets they will shoot sub MOA groups. With mil surplus bullets, or some real awful (and very cheap) R-P 165 Corelocks, 2 MOA is not unexpected. Since I do not know what type of bullets Mr. Carmichael used, maybe that is what happened in his rifle.

I can say that factory match ammunition can be very very good. I have shot bunches of the military M852. This 308 round was loaded by LC and used the 168 Sierra Match bullet. It was capable of .5 MOA. I have seen the groups, and shot a couple very close to that with that ammunition. I have also seen the groups shot by the Marine Corp team with Blackhills, and Federal Match. Both the Marine Corp Rifle Team and the Army Marksmanship unit shoot factory .223 match ammunition out to 300 yards. The brand varies by the year, but Federal is the most common brand that they have used when I have been near them.

People can improve on the accuracy of factory loaded match ammunition, but it takes work.

As for hunting ammunition fired in factory hunting barrels, there are so many variables that things are hit and miss. For a similar example, my FN/FAL will shoot surplus Australian 147 grain 308 ammunition within 2 inches at 100 yards. My match 308 will not shoot the same stuff within 4 inches at 100 yards. It is all that I can do to shoot 2 MOA in the FN with match ammunition. There is some favorable tolerance stack up going on with that FN and that military ammunition, but it is all random luck of the draw.

As for Mr. Carmichael throwing mud at the 270. I don’t know, have not read the article. But do remember Col Askins throwing mud at the 30-06. Charles Askins was a very dishonest gunwriter, he loved to create controversy in print as a means of self promotion. Maybe this is the same.

my Weatherby Mark V in 270 winchester just sucks. It will shoot 20 130 grain Sierra pro hunter bullets into 2 inches at 100 yards the barrel is a bit hot at the end of this. It will shoot 3 into about .5 inch, I guess I need to dump it and get a more accurate gun. That said I like my 30-06 better.

Originally posted by DJ:

quote:

I'm sure that if it was a 280 it would have put all the shots in 1 hole at 300yds even with the wind shift

I thought I would never hear you admit that
I agree with the other posters in that the quality of the rifle is more important than caliber. However, I do think that certain calibers are more inherently accurate than others. Take the 308 win for example.

Jim Carmichel is nothing more than a biased ass. Anyone who has ever had a custom rifle, has handloaded, has shot factory and handloaded ammo knows that you can put the best or worst factory ammo through a very sound, well built rifle and it can shoot like sh_t. The very best custom rifle can still put lots of factory ammo into a 2+ inch group at 100 yards. It's the ammo. Most of it is not that concentric, has lots of runout, etc.

I have a very very accurate 30.06, all custom and blueprinted, the whole 9 yards. I bought 3 boxes of different factory ammo just to get some rounds through the rifle before I began handloading. I bought stuff I could always use as backup short range bear rounds--180 grain bullets.

Even after 30 rounds were through this rifle, the best group I could get with Remmy coreloct was about 2.5" My final opinion on that factory ammo is it is shit. The bullet is actually decent, works on a lot of stuff. But I've never had any remmy ammo group worth a crap in over 20 rifles I've owned.

The 270 is a wonderfully accurate cartridge. I've got 3 custom 270s and they are all sub moa shooters with my handloads.

I would suggest you read another writer's opinion: article 1.

Article 2, the 270 is brought up regarding it's accuracy.

Here is the link to the article:The .270 Mystery

The more I read this article the more I shake my head and wonder how someone gets paid to write this crap. There is no data only what he wants to prove and when the rifle is said to shoot light weight wells @ sub MOA..no numbers are really given. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the ammo and loads tested.

Favorite quotes:

quote:

In no instance did a group with handloaded bullets measure as large as 2 inches, and groups measuring less than an inch were common.

quote:

the M-70 produced a good first test group, with its first two shots overlapping. But even with our super-accurate calibration load, the final group, and those following, measured over 2 inches.

quote:

Whereas sub-MOA groups were common with bullets in the 130-to- 150-grain range, there was similar accuracy with bullet weights of 90 and 110 grains, indicating the uncommon versatility of the .270.

I guess it is his way to somewhat praise the 270 but still DIS it in the same breath.

Who knows, maybe it was the turd pulling the trigger.

Thanks for the URL. I read most of the article. It is obvious that Mr. Carmicheal is not a target shooter because he would understand why the 270 is not used as a target round. It is due to three things: Ballistics, bullets, recoil.

The ballistics of a .270 is not better than the ballistics of a 6.5mm. The ballistics of the 7mm as good as they are, are inferior to the 6.5 mm class. Ten years ago you saw 7mm on the line, now you don’t. You see 6mm or 6.5 mm. The 270 also kicks harder than a 6.5-08. Anyone who shoots in competition knows that recoil is the enemy of consistency. You flinch, you loose your position. The 270 is an overbore cartridge, barrel life would be as bad as any 6.5 mm. And don’t forget match bullets. You can’t compete without the best match bullets. There were never any match quality bullets for the 270, until lately. That’s why the 6.5 calibers languished for so long, the only good consistent match bullets for years were in 30 caliber. But now, great bullets are available in the smaller calibers. I understand that now there is a 270 match bullet. I cannot image a serious competitor shooting it.

Great thing about the web, we can point out the foolishness of fool gunwriters. Not like in the old days where these shills had the microphone all to themselves.

quote:

It is obvious that Mr. Carmicheal is not a target shooter because he would understand why the 270 is not used as a target round. It is due to three things: Ballistics, bullets, recoil.

That's funny because I've seen him personally shoot at the Super Shoot, and seen his mug in photos shooting at Camp Perry.

In my experience running a public shooting range it seemed that the average .270 was more accurate than the average of the other popular hunting cartridges with the possible exception of the .308 Win.
I have no ax to grind, I have never owned a .270, but I have always recommended the cartridge, especially for deer.
Carmichael's obvious prejudice has led me to disregard his opinions about hunting rifles and cartridges.

Most riflemen are aware of Mr. Carmichaels dislike of the .270 WCF. He prefers the .280,or 7M/M Express, or the 7M/M-06, or what ever name they have to change it to get somebody to buy it! The .270 is a fine accurate big game cartridge. Oh, by the way the other cartridge that Jimbo hisses at is a Old Geezer called the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum. Go figure! This the same cartridge that cactus Jack O'connor used for his lion.

Well perhaps I mischaracterized Mr. Carmicheal as not being a target shooter. But then, that makes his lack of understanding of why the 270 Win never became a popular target round even more puzzling.

Not really, it's no different than a die hard Ford fan slamming the guy that drives a chevy, and vice versa.

My custom Broughton-Richards 270 puts Btips in the 0.2s. Makes me wonder what it will do with a Berger when they come out.

Thanks to all for your posts . Your feedback was really about what I expected . No way did I think that the .270 was inherently inferior in the accuract dept. . I guess that the article just really bugged me , and I really didn't think that factory ammo could bad enough to get such poor groups out of a rifle like the one in the test . Apparently I was mistaken on that point . I guess it was the implication that the cartridge/caliber was at fault that irritated me . Guess I'm not alone there . Just a case of muckraking I guess . Doesn't affect my rifles .

I own only one rifle , but my dad gave it to me in high school for my first hunt out west--a .270, of course

It's a mid-80's vintage Model 70 "lightweight." The barrell is pretty skinny, and the only thing the gun has had done to it is to ream out the barrell channel a little to ensure it's free-floated.

As for factory ammo, it shoots the Federal TBBC 140 gr. in an honest 3/4". I've even had groups with the Federal stuff that you can cover with a nickle.

It shoots the el cheapo Winchester 130 gr. PP almost as well.

The only thing about that "lightweight" is that the barrell heats up mighty fast. That usually throws the 3rd shot up and to the left--again, by about 1/2."

As good as the rifle shoots, my wife will brook no argument about how I "need" anything else.

Guess I can't complain, though--still get to do lots of hunting!

friar

Jim Carmichel has always been a critic of the 270W. I speculate--seeing as how he's the guy who replaced Jack O'Conner--he initially had to seperate himself from the O'Conner mystique. Regardless, every few years he seems to go out of his way to dream up some psuedo science phenomena about the 270. If you read his columns in the 80's, a guy would think the only cartridge worthy of killing an elk was a 338WM. I know better....

Casey

I've used a .270 Win all of my hunting life. I had a Ruger .270 that I couldn't get to shoot consistantly the way I wanted. I junked it and got a Pre-64, Mod 70. After some work, It'll easily put 3 into under a inch at 100 yds. This with 150 gr. Partitions and a case full of Rldr-22. I've used a .270 of some type since before I came to Alaska and they've always been my "go to" rifle. Great for sheep & caribou & I wouldn't hesitate to use it on moose too.
According to Carmichael, guess I shoulda been a gunwriter instead of "wasting" my time all of these years. On second thought - Naw, I'm glad I went hunting instead. That article is another reminder of why I don't subscribe to rags like Outdoor Life.
Ya'll take care now, Bear in Fairbanks

I have a Model 70 Winchester in 270 Winchester I bought in a pawn shop. It is stainless classic with a wood stock. I have just used it for hunting and the longest shot I have made with it is 200 yards. It shoots under one inch at 100 yards. The only ammunition I have ever shot in it is Remington 150 grain green box (semi round nose). In the next week or so I intend to take it to the range and try some Winchester 150 grain power point. It is more pointed and would seem to fit the 270 Winchester image better.

I meant to add that I have looked for the same rifle in 30-06 and have done so in vain. I found another 270 at a gun show with much better wood and I was tempted but didn't go through with it.

Why not? You could have bought it and had a new bbl put on it chambered in .06.

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
If it wasn't for Jack Oconnor and Roy Rogers the .270 and the model 94 in 30-30 would have been history long ago.

No, the .270 is with us because it's the best deer cartridge ever invented, and the 30-30 is here because the 94 Win was an excellent saddle carbine!

quote:

the average .270 was more accurate than the average of the other popular hunting cartridges

I have also found this to be true!

There now. Do all you .270 owners feel better now?

Yes, I do.