I just found MORE once-fired 25-06 brass while cleaning - I didn't think I shot it that much. Besides a simple pass through a 270 sizer die, is there any other work required? If not, I'll resize it instead of finding someone to swap with.

Thanks,

Lou

Resize it. The neck will just be a touch shorter.

Thanks!

It will work, but since .25-06 has a nominal case length of 2.494" while .270 has a nominal length of 2.54" AND expanding the case will cause the neck to get a little shorter still, you may end up working with shorter cases than you are comfortable with. Also, rifle chambers are notoriously "generous" in size, so the thinned necks of resized .25-06 will not quite fill the chamber space of the .270 chamber as well (they will rest on the bottom of the chamber, thus placing the bullet very slightly off-center of the bore.) This may or may not result in some measurable detriment to accuracy. But the thinner case necks will have a tendancy to split prematurely.

Bottom line: It will work, and probably do just fine, but you might be better off trading the .25 brass to someone who can use it and buying additional .270 brass.

Dr. Lou:

The 270 winchester, is my favorite cartridge, and I have been loading it for over 40 years.

I have found, that using the shorter "06" cases, greatly increases the rate of throat erosion, especially if you shoot the popular 3100fps loads the 270 is famous for. While all the 06 cases will work, I'd stick with the 2.540" 270 cases.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Dr. Lou:

The 270 winchester, is my favorite cartridge, and I have been loading it for over 40 years.

I have found, that using the shorter "06" cases, greatly increases the rate of throat erosion, especially if you shoot the popular 3100fps loads the 270 is famous for. While all the 06 cases will work, I'd stick with the 2.540" 270 cases.Jerry

X 2 roger

Another plus to what has already beens said.

I actually prefer going large to small when forming or playing with cases...I always got a bit more length AND neck thickness that way so I could fit the case to the chamber more readily.

I've used 270 and 280 cases to form a number of 2.5" length calibers including 25-06 but not the other way around. The 280 case was at least nominal length and sometimes a bit longer and slightly heavier and had a bit LESS case capacity but they had a longer case life so it all averaged out.

I used a few 25-06 to form 7x75 AI cases way back tho' and more recently to form 7-08 just to compare case capacity to 7-08 cases and LC and Lapua 308 cases.

Luck

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Dr. Lou:

The 270 winchester, is my favorite cartridge, and I have been loading it for over 40 years.

I have found, that using the shorter "06" cases, greatly increases the rate of throat erosion, especially if you shoot the popular 3100fps loads the 270 is famous for. While all the 06 cases will work, I'd stick with the 2.540" 270 cases.

Jerry

I can't quite understand why this would be true. Can you elaborate on the theory behind it?

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Dr. Lou:

The 270 winchester, is my favorite cartridge, and I have been loading it for over 40 years.

I have found, that using the shorter "06" cases, greatly increases the rate of throat erosion, especially if you shoot the popular 3100fps loads the 270 is famous for. While all the 06 cases will work, I'd stick with the 2.540" 270 cases.

Jerry

As much as I respect Jerry's knowledge, I too am not sure I can agree with this point. But then again, I haven't used either .25-06 cases nor .30-06 cases formed to the .270.
Bear in Fairbanks

Stonecreek:

The 270 Winchester nominal chamber is throated for a case that is about.050 longer than the standard 06 length case. Using case shorter than 2.540, exposes the neck area to hot gases, that would normally be covered by the additional neck length. This was pointed out to me back in the 60's by Remington, after I had sent a Model 700 back to them for service. Also, Speer made reference to this situation in their reloading manuals,especially #8.

Jerry

quote:

I can't quite understand why this would be true. Can you elaborate on the theory behind it?

From a safety viewpoint, and as a long time pisser of pants, I would NEVER convert using cases that are very similar for risk of OTHERS confusing what you've done.

Thus I'd certainly convert from 25-06 to 8x57 or 7x57 or even from 25-06 to 260 Remington etc.

But 25-06 to 270 Winchester?

Hmm! There is always that risk that someone other picks up one of your conversions and does actually chamber and fire it in a 25-06.

Just my over worried fretting I guess!

So I'd 100% agree with STONECREEK:

quote:

Bottom line: It will work, and probably do just fine, but you might be better off trading the .25 brass to someone who can use it and buying additional .270 brass.

FWIW the parent case for both 270 Winchester, as well as 30-06, is the 30-03. So technically 30-06 is not the parent case of the 270, and thus necking down a 30-06 will not quite be in 'spec' for the 270.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Stonecreek:

The 270 Winchester nominal chamber is throated for a case that is about.050 longer than the standard 06 length case. Using case shorter than 2.540, exposes the neck area to hot gases, that would normally be covered by the additional neck length. This was pointed out to me back in the 60's by Remington, after I had sent a Model 700 back to them for service. Also, Speer made reference to this situation in their reloading manuals,especially #8.

Jerry

quote:

I can't quite understand why this would be true. Can you elaborate on the theory behind it?

Well, I fear that Remington was pissing on your leg and telling you it was raining.

The portion of the chamber which would be left uncovered by short brass is not a part of the throat at all, but rather part of the chamber. Exposing that portion of the chamber to hot combustion gases might eventually erode it, but that is irrelavent to the actual throat of the rifle (the portion of the barrel where the rifling leade tapers into the full-diameter rifling and where excessive erosion is detrimental to accuracy.)

If, as you and Remington say, short brass leads to "throat" erosion, then it follows that longer brass, which spills its first hot gas directly onto the leade, would erode the critical thoat area even worse.

This erroneous concept probably springs from the ancient caution not to use .22 Shorts in a .22 LR chamber. This advice is long since obsolete. Old fashioned corrosive .22 Short ammunition would do two bad things in a LR chamber if used excessively: It would create a ring of residue just in front of the brass mouth, such ring sometimes building up to the point that a .22 LR could not be chambered. The second bad thing it would do would be that the ring of corrosive deposits, if left unattended, would attract moisture and rust the chamber, leaving a circular depression once it was removed. A .22 LR case subsequently fired in this chamber would expand into the circular depression and fail to extract.

That all comes from something that stopped happening to any significant extent before the last Great War. Amazing how these things take on a life of their own and persist for generations after their relavence has faded.

quote:

Hmm! There is always that risk that someone other picks up one of your conversions and does actually chamber and fire it in a 25-06.

Chambering a .270 cartridge into a .25-06 chamber would be a Herculean feat that is not possible in many action types, but with a bolt action I suppose you could accomplish it, provided you were handy with a 32 oz. sledgehammer; in some single shots you might use the sledgehammer and a properly sized punch to get it in there. I can't feature doing it with muscle power alone, at least not human muscle power.

Conversely, chambering a .25-06 in a .270 chamber is easy, but so is the path for a .25 caliber bullet as it bounces harmlessly down a .27 caliber bore under minimal pressure.

Remington designers did fear that the marginally larger .284 bullet of their .280 Remington might conceivably fit into someone's egregiously worn .277 throat, so they lengthend the shoulder's datam point enough to prevent any possible chambering in a .270. However, the reason that no one bothered to shorten the shoulder datum point for the .25-06 (which was commercialized 34 years subsequent to the .270) is that the difference in the .277" bullet and the .257" is ample to prevent the larger round from chambering in the smaller bore.

I think that you could, especially if the bullet were not crimped, or was gripped poorly by the case neck. Or the rifle had a long throat, or freebore, or a maximum tolerance chamber.

The more so as the casual user might read the 25-06 headstamp and just assume that the ammunition was not full length sized and needed a bit of "assistance".

Stonecreek: If you already had all this info, why bother to ask me to post? Lookin for a pissin contest? Or are you just one smart Jose?

In most reloading manuals, they all discuss the effects of using short brass. As to Remington pissin on my leg, they replaced the barrel, even after I told them I had been using 06 length brass. Oh yeah, also, at that time my best friend worked for Remington, and had acquainted me with their custom shop and repair facility staffs. If they told me, then, that they needed to piss on my leg to take care of my firearm, that'd be ok with me!!

BTW, did you check the Speer #8 maunal as I referenced earlier? No! That freakin figures.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
.25-06 (which was commercialized 34 years subsequent to the .270)

Since we are picking nits...I believe that would be 44 years.

quote:

Stonecreek: If you already had all this info, why bother to ask me to post?

I thought there might be some other rationale of which I was not aware, and if so I certainly want to be informed. My purpose in asking was not to be uncivil, but rather to hopefully illuminate the subject -- don't know about you but I learn alot from listening to the experience of others. Regretably, other than repeating the sources of your information, you don't offer any logic or additional explanation to support your position. This is not very illuminating.

quote:

As to Remington pissin on my leg, they replaced the barrel, even after I told them I had been using 06 length brass.

So Remington blamed your problems on your use of short brass, but replaced the barrel at their expense, anyway? That hardly makes a convincing case that Remington truly believed that short brass was the cause of whatever problem existed with the barrel, now does it?

Again, my purpose was not to start an argument. If there is something I've overlooked about the effect of using short brass in a chamber I'd like to be informed. However, you haven't offered us much to expand our knowledge in this area.

Stonecreek:

I need not make a case, either for Remington, me or Speer. I figure they know what's up.

Further, Speer in their manual #8 and on page 194, states: "The 270 is precisly like the 30/06 and headspace gauges are interchangeable between the two cartridges. However, the 270 case is about .050 inch longer. Using 30/06 cases full length, sized to .270, tends to increase the rate of throat erosion".

My personal experience supports this statement, by a widely recognized and respected Bullet & Reloading Authority.

What else is there to say on the matter!!

Jerry

I admit that I am not well versed in the potential consequences of not doing so, however, it seems to me ensuring the brass you are reloading meets 'spec' is simply an all around 'good idea'. Are you suggesting that reloading brass where the neck is shorter than spec is 'OK'?

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
I think that you could, especially if the bullet were not crimped, or was gripped poorly by the case neck. Or the rifle had a long throat, or freebore, or a maximum tolerance chamber.

The more so as the casual user might read the 25-06 headstamp and just assume that the ammunition was not full length sized and needed a bit of "assistance".

You could be right. Be sure to write back a report whenever you're able to get one chambered as we'd all be fascinated to read of the experience.

Along similar lines, Salt Lake City gunsmith P. O. Ackley (of "Ackley Improved" fame) did a series of blow-up tests with the most widely available bolt actions of the day (1960s). He recounted the experience of an amateur who decided to convert his 6.5 Japanese Ariska to use a .30-06 case. The amateur got hold of a .30-06 reamer, turned down its pilot small enought to enter the 6.5 bore, and simply ran it into the barrel far enough for a .30-06 cartridge to chamber (used a factory load for his go/no-go gage ). He then proceeded to go a'huntin' and actually killed a deer with it using '06 factory ammo. He brought it in to Ackley with the complaint that the bolt was hard to work and the gun "kicked way too much". When Ackely discovered the situation he was astounded to find that there had been no primer leakage and that there was no setback to the lugs of the action.

What this story illustrates is that when using a bullet with a soft lead core, it is surprisingly easy to swage an oversized bullet down to bore size simply by firing it through the gun. I certainly DON'T recommend it in any way (even if it were somehow possible), but there are more dangerous situations than a .270 round crammed into a .25-06 chamber.

quote:

What else is there to say on the matter!!

Fine. Let's all accept the statement as true.

"What else is there to say on the matter" is simply, "Why?"

No one seems to offer a rationale for why this statement is true, and I've offered a rationale for why it is not.

Now that you've convinced me, through strident repetition, that I am mistaken, I'd like to know what is wrong with my rationale.

Fair enough?

Stonecreek: your hypothesis is intuitively compelling. However, it is contradicted by a more experienced authority (no offense). To get Speer's rationale, one would have to ask Speer.

While it makes for an interesting hypothetical discussion, the simple solution is to use the correct brass. Seems to me that if you have an intellectual need to do more research/explanation, the best thing to do would be to call Speer.

Fair enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

No one seems to offer a rationale for why this statement is true, and I've offered a rationale for why it is not.

I assume this is your 'rationale'

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

The portion of the chamber which would be left uncovered by short brass is not a part of the throat at all, but rather part of the chamber. Exposing that portion of the chamber to hot combustion gases might eventually erode it, but that is irrelavent to the actual throat of the rifle (the portion of the barrel where the rifling leade tapers into the full-diameter rifling and where excessive erosion is detrimental to accuracy.)

The problem is, the firing of a modern centrefire rifle cartridge is complex process that occurs in tiny fractions of a second. The force with which the bullet is held in the case (static friction) plays an important role in determining the shape of the pressure curve. Since the case is typically not a 'tight' fit in the chamber, it needs to expand so as to seal any possible escape for the rapidly expanding gas, other than pushing the bullet down the barrel. Even that avenue isn't 'sealed' until the bullet has 'engraved'. So does your 'rationale' account for all of the timing issues in the sequence that occurs within fractions of a second? The understanding of some expert sources, as well as empirical data, appear to contradict your 'rationale'.

quote:

You could be right. Be sure to write back a report whenever you're able to get one chambered as we'd all be fascinated to read of the experience.

Maybe I won't be able to but I'm sure these guys, in the circumstance I describe in this thread, would have been able to:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...3221043/m/8431057741

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
Stonecreek: your hypothesis is intuitively compelling. However, it is contradicted by a more experienced authority (no offense). To get Speer's rationale, one would have to ask Speer.

While it makes for an interesting hypothetical discussion, the simple solution is to use the correct brass. Seems to me that if you have an intellectual need to do more research/explanation, the best thing to do would be to call Speer.

Fair enough?

If you'll note in my posts early on, I advised that trading away the .25-06 brass in favor of genuine .270 brass is the most advisable route.

Subsequent posts from others alleged potential damage from using resized .25-06 brass. While I concur that using original .270 brass is preferable, the specter of damage from shorter brass is an allegation I have reason to doubt, and have espressed a rationale for that doubt (as well as a hypothesis as to the historical origins of the belief in the potential for damage.)

You acknowledge that I have at least an "intuitively compelling" rationale for that doubt. However, you seem to suggest that it is my burden to disprove, or at least discover the rationale behind, a statement cited by another party. Rather, don't you think it more the duty of the party who cited the statement to defend it, and if necessary to do so by inquiring of the source he cited as to its foundations?

Regardless of whose duty it might or might not be, I do have pretty much the full collection of Speer manuals from the late 1950's through the current ones. When I am back at my library I will go through them to see if any rationale is offered for the cited statement. Prior to doing this research, my suspicion is that Speer #8, published in the early 1970's as I recall, likely contains a number of statements which later, more enlightened editions do not. Just as Speer #8 deleted gross overloads published in Speer #7, I suspect the reference to "short brass" might well have been deleted in later years. We shall see.

In the meantime, I'm surprised at the somewhat Papal attitude that simply because some "authority" once said it that it is not to be questioned, but simply taken as gospel. I thought this was a more inquisitive forum.

quote:

Originally posted by deadkenny:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

No one seems to offer a rationale for why this statement is true, and I've offered a rationale for why it is not.

I assume this is your 'rationale'

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

The portion of the chamber which would be left uncovered by short brass is not a part of the throat at all, but rather part of the chamber. Exposing that portion of the chamber to hot combustion gases might eventually erode it, but that is irrelavent to the actual throat of the rifle (the portion of the barrel where the rifling leade tapers into the full-diameter rifling and where excessive erosion is detrimental to accuracy.)

The problem is, the firing of a modern centrefire rifle cartridge is complex process that occurs in tiny fractions of a second. The force with which the bullet is held in the case (static friction) plays an important role in determining the shape of the pressure curve. Since the case is typically not a 'tight' fit in the chamber, it needs to expand so as to seal any possible escape for the rapidly expanding gas, other than pushing the bullet down the barrel. Even that avenue isn't 'sealed' until the bullet has 'engraved'. So does your 'rationale' account for all of the timing issues in the sequence that occurs within fractions of a second? The understanding of some expert sources, as well as empirical data, appear to contradict your 'rationale'.

Well, I'll give you that at least "It's complicated" is a better rationale than "because some book said so".

Let me ask this: If moving the point at which the case neck ends .05" rearward results in a significant increase in thoat erosion (yes the critical area where the bullet engraves), then what effect does moving the throat itself .50" forward (as in a Weatherby freebored chamber) have on throat erosion? And what effect does trimming brass to the length suggested by the "authority" (in this case, the Speer manual) of .010" short of nominal maximum? And what effect does it have for a chamber to have a neck portion that is .05" longer than spec, thus allowing brass that is maximum spec length to actually be .05" short, just like a .25-06 in a .270 chamber?

I agree, its complicated; but the complications are so numerous as to make a difference in brass length of .05" appear di minimus.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

You could be right. Be sure to write back a report whenever you're able to get one chambered as we'd all be fascinated to read of the experience.

Maybe I won't be able to but I'm sure these guys, in the circumstance I describe in this thread, would have been able to:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...3221043/m/8431057741

Yep. Just as I said, you might be able to get it in if you pound on it with a hammer. Even though these guys never quite got the round chambered, thanks for illustrating my conjecture with an actual example!

Obviously, in this case and in every other case cited in the thread, there is no instance in which having the correct headstamp would have saved any of these idiots from their situations as they were all attempting to chamber rounds headstamped differently from the guns, now weren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
.25-06 (which was commercialized 34 years subsequent to the .270)

Since we are picking nits...I believe that would be 44 years.

Not intending to pick any nits, and my math is always subject to "revision". I had down 1935 for the .270 and 1969 for the .25-06, which looks a lot like 34 rather than 44 years. Did I miss the date on one or the other? If so, I apologize and must blame the ravages of age.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Well, I'll give you that at least "It's complicated" is a better rationale than "because some book said so".

Let me ask this: If moving the point at which the case neck ends .05" rearward results in a significant increase in thoat erosion (yes the critical area where the bullet engraves), then what effect does moving the throat itself .50" forward (as in a Weatherby freebored chamber) have on throat erosion? And what effect does trimming brass to the length suggested by the "authority" (in this case, the Speer manual) of .010" short of nominal maximum? And what effect does it have for a chamber to have a neck portion that is .05" longer than spec, thus allowing brass that is maximum spec length to actually be .05" short, just like a .25-06 in a .270 chamber?

I agree, its complicated; but the complications are so numerous as to make a difference in brass length of .05" appear di minimus.

Well, bottomline is that I find authoritative sources more compelling than your 'it appears to be'. When reloading, enough is 'on the line' that I like to keep everything 'in spec'. That .05" might not seem like much, but let's keep in mind that is is a signficant percentage of the total neck length you're talking about 'chopping off'. No one said it would lead definitely and immediately to a catastrophic explosion. Is it really so difficult to believe that using out of spec brass could result in accelerated throat errosion? It doesn't seem that implausible to me. I honestly have no idea would the consequence of being out of spec in the 'other direction' would be. Nor would I care to 'experiment' using my firearms (and my person!). I rely on loading manuals for load data and it seems reasonable to rely on them for other related issues as well, such as the potential consequences of firing out of spec brass.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Not intending to pick any nits, and my math is always subject to "revision". I had down 1935 for the .270 and 1969 for the .25-06, which looks a lot like 34 rather than 44 years. Did I miss the date on one or the other? If so, I apologize and must blame the ravages of age.

1925 for 270 Win

You're probably right. I suspect I am remembering the decade of the '30's because of the introduction of the Winchester M70 in 1937. I'll consider my nits properly and thoroughly picked.

No Contest. Here's the scenario about the Remington barrel and my experience. This was a Model 700, hence Remington's involvement in all of this. Back in the early 70's it was the only centerfire rifle I had, and it was shot a lot. After a year or 2, the groups started to open up, and cases began to seperate in front of the web. When I sent the rifle back, along with a couple sized and fired cases, the response was, "that my cases were too short, and that had caused the throat to become rough, and had increased my headspace.

Now, I can only relate to you my personal experience,with the 270 Winchester which after all these years is very extensive. Since that episode, I have used 2.540 length caes, and have NEVER had another problem. I might add, I load the 270 on the high end of hot, and always have, yet the one I spoke of earlier, is the only one, Remington, Winchester or Mauser, with which I ever had a problem.

Jerry

Well, didn't have to do very exhaustive research of the Speer manuals.

As Jerry points out quite accurately, the Speer Manual #8 (copyright 1970) narrative for the .270 Winchester clearly says "Using .30-06 cases full length, sized to .270, tends to increase the rate of throat erosion."

In addition to that quote appearing in #8, the identical quote appears in both #7 (1966) and #5 (1961). I'm sure it is also in #6 which I do not own, and may have originated in an even earlier edition.

But here's what the Speer Manual #9 (copyright 1974) said in its revised narrative: ".270 case necks are a bit longer than the '06, but the latter is easily reformed by full length sizing the '06 cases in a .270 die. The slight difference in length of reformed cases doesn't make any practical difference." (Page 195)

Speer Manual #10 (copyright 1979) has identical language on page 182.

I don't have #11, so can't comment.

#12 (copyright 1994) makes no mention of case length, nor does #13 (1998), nor #14 (copyright 2007).

It appears that the statement by whomever wrote tha narrative for the early Speer manuals was fully rescinded by the authors of #9 and #10, after which the issue, having been presumably put to rest, was ignored. This seems to provide some credibility to my belief that the statement was an outgrowth of even earlier experience with the .22 rimfire and corrosive ammunition, but there is no direct evidence of that here.

Now, I don't consider any particular edition of the Speer manual to be the final authority on every subject, but insofar as throat erosion due to "short cases", it seems that Speer's position since 1974 has been that it "doesn't make any practical difference".

If we're going to rely on a particular authority, let's at least rely on that authority's most recent opinion.

messed up, extra post

quote:

When I sent the rifle back, along with a couple sized and fired cases, the response was, "that my cases were too short, and that had caused the throat to become rough, and had increased my headspace.

Nice try Jerry, but I'm not going to be baited into another of these "discussions" by your alleging a cause-effect relationship between rough throats and increased headspace. I don't think you'll find that one even in Speer Manual #1.

(oops, posted an extra time)

quote:

Originally posted by deadkenny:
Well, bottomline is that I find authoritative sources more compelling than your 'it appears to be'.

Kenny: I trust you find current pronouncements of "authoritative sources" even more compelling yet.

Short necked cases causing HEADSPACE issues...I think not. I found this topic intriguing, so I contacted an acquaintence at a major barrel manufacturer. His opinon was that a case with a neck just long enough to hold a bullet would NOT cause any difference in throat erosion versus one of max neck length.

He in fact, also referenced the 'typically' longer throats on rifles like Weatherbys and some others, and stated that this was effectively the same thing as a shorter necked case in a chamber with less freebore, and that there was not any issue with accelerated throat erosion on barrels with chambers that have more freebore, or vice versa.

Just FYI

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Kenny: I trust you find current pronouncements of "authoritative sources" even more compelling yet.

Sure, if there's 'more correct' information out there, then I'm not going to reject it. It does seem a bit of an odd development, where they first say 'short is a problem', then 'short is not a problem' then say nothing one way or the other. For my part I'll simply stick (much closer) to spec and avoid any issue entirely. It's not as if 270 Win brass is especially 'rare' or 'expensive' or something. Now, if I was shooting 280 Rem, it might be a different story.