The forum has stale so I thought we should liven it up by celebrating a fantastic cartridge! I'd like to hear your thoughts on the 270 win, do you use it and if not what do you like better. In short order when I was young I went from a 280 to a 7mag to a 270 and haven't regreted it. Care to share?

Yes.......... shot a .270 for several decades. Killed a lot of stuff with it including a fair number of moose, elk, deer, caribou, black bear, sheep, goat, pronghorn, and a couple of grizzlies. Then I wandered and played with other cartridges in that performance category.

Years later I again have a .270. It is a pre-64 Model 70. Shoots like a house on fire and it will still get the job just as well, if not better than it did first time around. Better bullets have improved its performance, as they have for other cartridges.

Over the years I' owned seven different 270s. Rugers, Remingtons, Winchesters, Mausers. I am down to three right now. I've loaded for all of them and a couple of others for friends and they all shoot - usually about 1" groups (3 shot) at 100 yards. I've killed mule deer, elk, pronghorns and big horn sheep with them and been completely satisfied. There's lots of good cartridges out there and the 270 is my favorite.

Handsdown, my favorite cartridge.

For several years, I thought I needed one of everything in terms of custom rifles. 250's, 257's, 6.5's, 280's, 7MM's...I had to have them all. Now I wish I had had them all chambered in 270 WIN (maybe I'd keep a certain lovely 7X57 too ).

I'd have no qualms about using a 270 on any animal in the Lower 48 and all but the biggest and baddest worldwide. I took a 270 to kill a bunch of kudu and hartebeest on a cull hunt. It opened my eyes to what the cartridge is capable of. If I were forced to thin the herd down to a single center fire rifle, it would be my custom Brno 21 in 270 WIN.

I've owned four, five, six of them. Currently have just one. I can't help continuing to think, excellent as it is, that it's a "gimmick" that, somehow, caught on.

My other rifles are 7x64, .280 Remington, .30-06. I just like, for here in UK and Europe those 160, 165, 173 and 180 grain bullets! There! I'm "out" I'm a "ten gramme plus man" and proud!

The earlier 7x64 is better, as is the later .280 Remington. And as an all around the .30-06 still rules. Everytime I have a .270 I just keep wishing Winchester had made it a "true" 7mm not .277".

Sure it's a great cartridge. But it would be greater still if it been America's "7x64"...a true 7mm. Imagine that. Not stopping at 140 grain, 150 grain but on through 160 grain to 173 grain.

For all its excellence .270 WCF meant that the .280 Remington has never become the great cartridge IT should have been.

That .277" bullet size, those shoulders where they shouldn't be...if only, if only..an excellent cartridge that despite its excellence could have been really, truly, the ultimate medium bore cartridge but for those two "defects".

They say God created the .270. If so then, He rested, saw what He had done, thought once more, then created the .280!

But! Too late!

A great cartridge, but until the rifle manufacturers start building rifles with faster twists than 1:10, in order for bullet makers to produce more ballistically efficient bullets it will always play second fiddle to 6.5mm & 7mm for long range shooting which have some very exciting VLD's coming out.

Its a lot closer to a 7RM than most people think, but its all about bullets.

I bought my first new rifle in 30/06Spgfld and had an unfounded bias against the 270Win for many years. I don't know why I held the 270 in such low regard, as I had never shot one. Then one day I saw a Savage model 111 in 270 on Gunbroker.com with a Boyds lamenated stock and Timney trigger that really caught my eye and nobody had bid on it, so I offered the starting bid and won the auction. Had to fix a feeding issue, which was probably why it was for sale. I loved that rifle and calber! I gave away and sold my 06 rifles and also gave away the Savage but bought a new Ruger in 270 and won't part with it. The 270 will shoot in wind better than a lot of calibers and flatter than about anything with the modest recoil of it. Love it

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
I've owned four, five, six of them. Currently have just one. I can't help continuing to think, excellent as it is, that it's a "gimmick" that, somehow, caught on.

My other rifles are 7x64, .280 Remington, .30-06. I just like, for here in UK and Europe those 160, 165, 173 and 180 grain bullets! There! I'm "out" I'm a "ten gramme plus man" and proud!

The earlier 7x64 is better, as is the later .280 Remington. And as an all around the .30-06 still rules. Everytime I have a .270 I just keep wishing Winchester had made it a "true" 7mm not .277".

Sure it's a great cartridge. But it would be greater still if it been America's "7x64"...a true 7mm. Imagine that. Not stopping at 140 grain, 150 grain but on through 160 grain to 173 grain.

For all its excellence .270 WCF meant that the .280 Remington has never become the great cartridge IT should have been.

That .277" bullet size, those shoulders where they shouldn't be...if only, if only..an excellent cartridge that despite its excellence could have been really, truly, the ultimate medium bore cartridge but for those two "defects".

They say God created the .270. If so then, He rested, saw what He had done, thought once more, then created the .280!

But! Too late!

The 270 is the North American Original, so it's not surprising a European wouldn't understand its grandeur!

Its only "gimmick" is Winchester reportedly didn't want a .284" round that could be used in re-chambered, Pre-98 Mauser 7x57's that were flooding America from Mexico at the time. The actions weren't considered strong enough for the new cartridge. Also, undoubtedly, it was to sell more Winchester rifles too (at first the Model 51, then later the Model 54)!

So no, not a gimmick, but primarily a safety decision, misguided though it may have been.

I think we all over-think calibers. I have used the .270 and the .280 Rem a lot on elk, kudu and other game that reaches a good size. I think a well placed shot using a bullet of enough bulk/weight/momentum/energy works wonderfully.

I use a .300 Win Mag a lot but am moving back to my .280 due to recoil and overall accuracy. I think accuracy is a lot bigger deal than caliber on most things.

Further, I think we have way too many choices out there, hence the confusion over calibers. The appreciable difference between a .277" and .284" diameter bullet is not worth thinking about in my way of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by kiwiwildcat:
A great cartridge, but until the rifle manufacturers start building rifles with faster twists than 1:10, in order for bullet makers to produce more ballistically efficient bullets it will always play second fiddle to 6.5mm & 7mm for long range shooting which have some very exciting VLD's coming out.

The 270 Win is in the top 5 in sales amongst big game cartridges in the US and doesn't play "second fiddle" in popularity to any 6.5 or 7mm cartridge. Fear and paranoia largely drives the long range hunting community but the vast majority of hunters shoot the front half of 1200yards and under 300 at that.

I just never saw the need. Until recently, there was only one cartridge with that bullet diameter. If it was so great, there would be multitudes. Heck, even in the 6.5 there are more rounds chambered than in .277. 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 6.5-06, 6.5x284, 264WM, 6.5Rem Mag, 6.5TCU, Creedmoor Grendel, etc, with only about 3-4 with the 277 bullet.

Just never made sense to me. It is a good round, just not "all that".

I can't think of anything better than the 270 or 30-06 when you get down to the nut cutt'en..

You have to go to, at least, the .338 to make any difference in the larger big animals, and not sure that makes much difference until you get to the big bears..

I do have a fondness for the 7x57,and its the smallest caliber I would hunt any animal on earth with if I simply had too, but in the real world the rest of the calibers just prove that the only difference in men and boys is the cost of mens toys, towit I plead guilty as hell.

quote:

I can't think of anything better than the 270 or 30-06 when you get down to the nut cutt'en..

You have to go to, at least, the .338 to make any difference in the larger big animals,

The 270 Winchester is the equivalent of a small-bore magnum. It is a fantastic round, especially with the new lightweight monolithic bullets. I've shot a lot of animals with it in Africa and have seen some spectacular kills. But I cannot recommend it as a single rifle walkabout in the forest. Why? Because in Africa there are some large, dangerous critters around. And I've seen enough enhanced results in animals from a 338Win Mag and larger for me to recommend the 338Win Mag over a 270 or 30-06 for Africa.

As for a deer rifle in North America, the 270Win is the golden mean. It sets the bar and should really be the deer cartridge against which all others are measured. It has far more than enough energy and power for a deer cartridge and it shoots as flat as anyone could desire out to 500 yards. If someone actually wants to hunt beyond that range, then they need something truly specialized and a high BC bullet in a fast-twist .338 is probably the way to go. For 99+% of deer hunting, tune up an accurate rifle in 270 Win, and go hunting, knowing that you have the best second to none**.

**(Yes, the 280 Rem is great, too, the 280 is just a 270 Win when I'm not wearing my glasses.)

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
I just never saw the need. Until recently, there was only one cartridge with that bullet diameter. If it was so great, there would be multitudes. Heck, even in the 6.5 there are more rounds chambered than in .277. 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 6.5-06, 6.5x284, 264WM, 6.5Rem Mag, 6.5TCU, Creedmoor Grendel, etc, with only about 3-4 with the 277 bullet.

Just never made sense to me. It is a good round, just not "all that".

It's doubtful the sum of all the cartridges you exemplified exceeds the 270 in sales. 6.5s have had a long time to become popular. Although the there are not a lot of .277" commercial cartridges, the 270 "... is so great" by the number of rifles that exist and sales.

PS: I should add that there are a lot of marginal hunting areas in Africa where almost all of the game animals are medium antelope and smaller. In such a situation, the 270 is wonderful. I've taken geese, duiker, warthog, and oribi, on up to many a hartebeest with a little pre-64 270. (Let's not talk about the buffalo that have fallen to it.) The 270 is a great hunting machine and even in the past, the 130gn and 150gn were great all purpose bullets, Noslers leading the pack. Today I would recommend the 129 LRX in Africa and the 110TTSX or 110 GSC for deer, but all of the bullets for big game are basically winners.

As has been stated, all of the cartridges that fill the same niche as the 270 are functional to spectacular. Some hit harder, but do so at both ends. Some are long range lasers, but components and rifles require a second mortgage. Some are 'cool' and said to be efficient and "inherently accurate", but are re-treads with a 5 degree shoulder change. The .270 Winchester is a compromise of all these...with no compromise. True there are not 3 dozen bullet weights to choose from, but that is because if you can't do it with a 90, 130, 140, 150, or 160 grain bullet with all the construction models represented, you just flat out need a much bigger gun. It is easy to shoot accurately. You can find any rifle you want chambered for it, from the Ruger American at $300 or an H-S Precision for $3,000 and everything in between. It is Gods gift to the average shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by 16Bore:
Its a lot closer to a 7RM than most people think, but its all about bullets.

Agree, my favorite rifle of all time is my late 60s BDL in 270 that I gave to my son. I've always loaded 150g Partitions to 3000 fps. Fine in our rifle, probably warm in some others. For comparison, I chrono'd Federal VitalShock 150g Partitions at 2610 fps out of the same rifle on the same day. Seems like every year manufacturers load their cartridges a bit slower.

I have owned a lot of different 270's and have loaded for it and shot it quite a bit over the years. The 270, 280 and 30-06 are all great. I am enjoying a 6.5 Creedmoor at present.

Joe

It's hard not to put in a good word for the .270. I was reading Outdoor Life and Jack O'Connor as a school boy in the '60's, and the .270 seemed to be the Holy Grail. At age 15 I ordered a Savage 110 barreled action, took it to Herters, picked out a plain piece of French walnut, and had them glass bed it, add rosewood grip cap and forend tip, and rough shape it. I finished it (crudely), scoped it with a Bushnell Scope Chief 3-9x. It shot lights out with Sierra 110 and 130 gr. handliads, and I shot untold numbers of crows, fox, and a few deer with it before I was 18. I still have it 50 years later, the barrel is about shot out, but I still lay down an occasional deer with it, and wouldn't part with it for any $.

My absolute favorite cartridge.

I currently have nine? in the house, and have owned too many to count.

Have played with 85gr to 180gr bullets and everything in between. Used it on gophers to elk.

Super lightweight rifles to Sendero, open sights to 20 power.

We have hunted with reduced, mild, and full power loads with much success. I cannot even begin to count the number of critters that have been taken by my Dad, myself, wife, nephews, and sons.

Any more I have four loads ready to go to test in any new rifle that may find it's way home.

60gr H4831 with a WLRM primer and four different bullets on top.
1. Barnes 130gr TSX
2. Barnes 130gr TTSX
3. Hornady 130gr GMX
4. Nosler 130gr BT

I have yet to find a rifle that will not shoot one of those loads right around an inch.

I have not done a lot of long range playing with the cartridge, but plan to rectify that this summer. I rounded up some slick 150gr bullets and mounted a Vortex 4-16 on a rifle. Cannot wait to get out to friends one mile range and see how it does.

I know it is probably not the best LR round, but being a 270 nut, I just have to see what it will do.

I didn't read the post carefully. When I first saw it, I thought you meant 270 grains!! memtb

I have two rifles with a .277 bore

.270 WCF
.270 WSM

Both are fine high speed cartridges and I like them both

The one problem with any .277 is bullet selection....or lack of

The availability of many more projectiles in .284 and .308 are what make the .280 Rem and the 30-06 Springfield outshine the .270 WCF

It's hard to explain the aversion I have always felt toward the .270. Like most shooters, I grew up reading Jack O'Conner's unstinting praise of the cartridge, but, living as I did, in an area totally devoid of big game and center fire rifles, it didn't mean a lot to me.

It was not until I went off to school and got involved with varmint hunting that I had my first experiences with high intensity cartridges, in this case, a .260 Remington, or as we called it in those days, a 6.5-08. This started my love affair with the 6.5 mm caliber which has persisted until today.

My 6.5-08 was a rechambered Japanese service rifle, crudely sporterized and equipped with a scope, which turned it into an effective varmint rifle. It happily digested bullets from 96 grain Normas to 160 grain Hornadys, and with its 1-7.5" twist, could stabilize anything.

Since then I have had rifles in 6.5X54 Mannlicher/Schoenauer, 6.5X54 Mauser, 6.5X55, 6.5X57 and 6.5X57R, .256 Newton and .264 Winchester Magnum, and I find them all wonderful cartridges for their particular niche in the hunting pantheon,

Over the years, I have owned .270's, almost all pre-64 Model 70's, which I then rebarreled to something else, without trying them out. I hardly ever use factory ammunition, and buying oddball .277 bullets and a special set of dies to load a caliber which I felt was already covered in my list of calibers didn't make sense.

Then a relatively short time ago an ad in Guns America caught my eye. It was for a Niedner barreled Mauser in .270. I looked it up and what little hair I still possess stood on end. What I was looking at was a 1922 Newton rifle, the rarest of all the Newtons made, of which only 100 were ever known to exist.

From the description, it had been owned by the seller's grandfather, who had had the rifle rebarreled by Niedner. After a little negotiation, it and several boxes of factory ammunition were mine.

For a number of years I have been pursuing a goal of hunting deer with as many different calibers as possible, to compare effectiveness. I have killed deer with everything from a .22 Savage High Power to a .400 Whelen, with widely varying results, but I felt it was time to give the .270 a try to see what all the fuss was about.

I am 77 years old and suffer from neuropathy in both feet, which limits my mobility. Consequently, my favorite hunting spot is a ground blind overlooking a harvested soy bean field on the back of my property,

This particular morning, as I sat before sunrise, waiting for enough light to shoot, I saw a good sized doe wander out onto the field and begin to graze about 150 yards away.

I forgot to mention that difficulties with my right eye force me to shoot left handed. Nonetheless, I managed to get the deer lined up in the early Lyman Alaskan 2 1/2X scope, and squeezed off a shot. There was immediately a resounding "WHACK" from the strike of the bullet, and the doe went down.

I remained where I was for about a half hour, and another doe came out of the woods, and wandered off to my left, making a shot very difficult, so I remained still and watched. After a while, the doe wandered back toward the woods, but then saw the other doe, lying about 50 yards away.

It hesitantly moved toward the motionless body, and when it got within fifteen yards, I gave it the same treatment as the first one. The result was exactly the same: the 130 grain soft point did its job perfectly. I was reminded of the result produced by my 7X64, with which I had made the longest shot on deer on my farm, about 260 yards.

I can't say that I prefer the .270 to all of the other deer calibers I have experimented with, but it certainly rose to the occasion when I finally did decide to give it a try.

I have .308 Winchesters, a 300 H+H and 30-06's. I have never seen a need for a .270. To my mind the 30's do the same job and make a bigger hole.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
I have .308 Winchesters, a 300 H+H and 30-06's. I have never seen a need for a .270. To my mind the 30's do the same job and make a bigger hole.

.031 bigger and with less BC per grain vs the .277

I was born into a 30 caliber family and it took me into my 30s to try anything other than a 30 cal.
I have a 270 that will stay with me until I die that was my primary big game rifle for about 15 years.
Over time I've come to understand that with a proper bullet and proper shot placement the cartridge and caliber are nearly inconsequential.

While a 270 won't do anything a 30/06, 8x57 or 6.5x54 can do equally well, it is fun to have our favorites and argue their merits. All that said, I do love the 270 for it's easy shooting nature and it's ubiquitous availability in the US.

I have a love/hate relationship with my Winchester 70 .270. Love the rifle and what the round does to critters, hate how I don't get to take it out more often.

Nobody tell my fiancee but I may not need another deer rifle.

I was interested in the idea it was .277" to prevent surplus 7x57 rifles being rechambered.

Other ideas I had heatd was Winchester had a huge batch of .277" barrels, for a cancelled Chinese military contract, they needed to use.

Another that someone mis-converted metric to imperial (Winchester intended it as a 7mm all along) and got .277", in error, as a result.

That last though I can't quite think correct as Winchester would have been familiar with the .275 Holland and Holland.

For sure they didn't factoryise a wildcat as there would be 7mm-06 in the 1920s surely.. but there never was AFAIK a .277-06?

Or, somehow, was the 7x64 design somehow protected to make a Winchester factory 7mm-06 actionable for patent or copyright infringement? I can't believe that either.

Do Winchester's records reveal why .277" and not .284"? It's odd that the two Cinderella cartridges...6mm Remington aka .244 Remington and .280 Remington aka 7mm Express are both Remington items.

Yet Winchestet missed the boat with a 7mm Magnum to Remington's offering...the 7mm Remington Magnum...as their .264" Winchester Magnum is moribund.

Even the necked down .308 Winchester is factory spec'd as 7mm-08 Remington!

Did someone at New Haven just "not like" 7mm? As Winchester seem to have gone all around the houses, as we say in UK, to ever make a success of one.

Of all the US gun articles I've read in forty years I've never seen the official, 100% researched, true story why .277" and not .284".

Like the Vicker's Luger story is the documentary evidence now lost to time?

Great donor for a custom .280

Duckear--
I appreciate your logo on hunting at 2800fps.

Our 338 in TZ does 225TTSX at 2835fps,
my wife's 375Ruger does a 200GSC at 2800fps,
our 416s do 350TTSX at 2820fps
my 500 AccR Nyati does 360CEB at 2800fps.
It's a great hunting velocity if the rifle is accurate.

Back in the day (pre-chronograph) I wouldn't be surprised if my 270 150grain Noslers did around 2800, though the manuals were promising 2900. Still, nowadays with a 270 I would think in terms of 3150fps with 129LRX for elk and 3400fps with the 110TTSX. That is string flat for antelope and deer at 400 yards.

My 500 Jeffery tops out at 2500 fps with a 570g bullet, I've learned to load it down to a sedate 2300fps. Plenty for elk ...

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
My 500 Jeffery tops out at 2500 fps with a 570g bullet, I've learned to load it down to a sedate 2300fps. Plenty for elk ...

Chuck, your high load is almost 8000 ftlbs. That is a lot of pushback for an all-around load.

You might want to consider the .510" CEB tipped "lever Raptor" 360 grains (350+10) at 2800fps, or up to 3000 as you wish. You might find the explosive new technology something awesome for elk and there won't be any trajectory issues out to 400 yards. Not quite as good as the 270, but respectable and with an incomparable wallop.

Thanks, I have a 270 Weatherby if I want to reach out, I just really like hunting with my 500 Jeffery, it swings so nicely. I've always liked hunting the dark timber best. At 12 lbs with scope, and being 67, I don't hunt as hard as I used to. Hopefully I'm hunting smarter.

I own a Husqvarna in 270 cal given to me by my dad. It is a beauty of a gun. It's taken coyote, deer, elk and Moose. I love that gun and feel confident that whenever I send a bullet on its way, that animal is as good as dead. Low recoil, flat trajectory and enough energy to kill all but the biggest critters. I think it's a great cartridge.
I had a 338 built. If I wasn't good friends with the gunsmith I wouldn't have bothered. Didn't really need it. Just wanted a custom gun and thought a 338 would make a great 2 gun duo.

As others have mentioned I grew up reading Jack O'Conner...and Elmer Keith and a few other hero writers of that era. Where I lived grew up it was either a 30-06, 30-30 or various military surplus rifles, 98K, SMLE and the very occasional Moisin/Nagant. Bsically 30 cal. country.

I have always been almost loathe to use what it popular or "what everyone else has" and certainly not just in rifles. Back then the 270 was something of an exotic where I lived. After my first Mod. 94 in 30-30 I went to the 270. I took a lot of game with it and it is a great cartridge and especially when chambered in its ancestral home, a Winchester. That was well over 40 years ago.

Since then I've played and hunted with a myriad of cartridges in all sorts of rifles, smokeless and black powder, foreign and domestic. Ballistically there is probably 1,274 cartridges currently in production in the same class as the 270 or, the 270 is in their class, however one chooses to say it. The overlap is mind boggling. It isn't somehow magically better. I've actually had more game drop where it stood with the old black powder cartridges and cast bullets than with the 270. Be that as it may the 270 WCF has always been one of those cartridges that makes me smile and there will always be one in my stable.

I also grew up with 30cal. Started with a 30-30 then a 30-06 then magnums up to 300RUM. The next smaller rifles in my cabinet (and also my dad's) were 22LR.
A few years ago I started to wonder what old JOC was talking about and bought a 270. Now I wonder why I didn't buy one 30 years ago.

First center fire rifle I ever bought. Right handed ADL, shot quite a few deer and pigs with it. Started handloading shortly after that and discovered that with a Speer 130-grain Grand Slam, that rifle was death. Period.

Sold that one when I found a LH BDL. This one, which I still own, wears an LSS stock, and with 60 grains of AA 3100, now discontinued, it cloverleafs at 100 and has a MV of 3150 (clocked...).

More pigs and whitetails than I can recall, and one 5X5 bull elk in 1997. I have a lot of other calibers now and have taken game with several of them, but if it comes to being a trip for just harvesting meat for the freezer, the 270 is what I grab.

My first centerfire was a 243 Win and my second was a 270 WCF. That's been 5 decades ago and I've always owned a handful of .277's in a couple variants.

It's a very capable deer, sheep, antelope round and there's no way of counting the animals downed with it during my hunting life (I prefer a larger hole for elk, but that's just me)

That said, there's really nothing about the .277 which is any better than a 280, 7mm mag, 6.5-06, 7x57 or the likes...and I've used all those too.

My current "go to" ass-kickers are 280 AI and 270 WSM....yes, I still have a couple 270 WCF's.
Zeke

Didn't Elmer Keith say it (the 270) was a good coyote gun. Personally, I'm partial to 200gr/.308 caliber bullets.....they just seem to kill from any angle and shoot flat. I do have a custom .270Win and it shoots lights out, but for me it is an deer/antelope rifle. If the task is bigger than that then I'm using a 300hh or 338WinMag. I don't want to have to limit myself to a broadside shot if that's all that is presented.

If I was limited to one rifle for "thin skinned" animals it wouldn't be a 270......mine would be a 300 Mag.